Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Derelict Land Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 36, leave out '100 per cent.' and insert
'80 per cent. or such other percentage as may be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'case' to end and insert '100 per cent.'.

Mr. Steen: These amendments deal with similar matters. It worries some Conservative Members that the Government should favour the public sector at the expense of the private sector. The amendments seek to bring the private sector to the same percentage as the public sector so that there is no discrimination in favour of either the English Industrial Estates Corporation or the local authorities at the expense of private investors and developers.
Alternatively, amendment No. 2 proposes that if the Secretary of State cannot accept that the English Industrial Estates Corporation should be brought down to 80 per cent., on all fours with the private sector, he should consider increasing the private sector grant from 80 to 100 per cent. That would mean that local authorities, the English Industrial Estates Corporation and the private sector would all enjoy a 100 per cent. grant.
We must set the Bill in the context of the Government's initiatives in city regeneration and consider it in the light of the Standing Committee's comments, but I remind the House that the English Industrial Estates Corporation is a wholly owned Government agency. Its staff are paid at Civil Service rates and its prime aim is to build factories where private enterpise would not feel it financially advantageous to do so. The agency was set up to try to help declining areas by pumping in public funds to build factories and, by a series of subsidies, to persuade industry to set up enterprises in areas to which it would not normally go.
On Merseyside we have enjoyed help from the corporation for some time. It has built many factories of

all sizes, especially in Liverpool, during the past decade. However, it is to be regretted that about 30 medium-sized factories have remained empty, some for as long as two years. That is not the best use of public money. The corporation is making greater inroads by a change of policy and building so-called beehive units. They are smaller units of about 500 to 1,500 sq ft and are ideal for small businesses.
The English Industrial Estates Corporation has been given a 100 per cent. grant from the Government—although it has had some help from the private sector—to build its medium-sized and large units. It is nothing other than a public agency. Although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wished to introduce the private connotation in Committee, private money is used virtually exclusively to build the small beehive units that are springing up in various areas.
The English Industrial Estates Corporation is a public corporation, which has built a number of factories and many of them—Liverpool is only one example—are standing empty and idle. That is the background against which we must consider whether the corporation, which has enjoyed special help from the Government and a special relationship with the Government, should continue to enjoy discrimination in favour of its future developments as against the developments that private enterprise would wish to undertake in similar circumstances.
It is worth noting that the corporation does not build shops or houses. It builds only factories, and mostly they are for manufacturing industries. We are giving it 100 per cent. grant to reclaim derelict land and vacant land, which it presumably does not own, which it will have to purchase with public money. It then has to apply to the Government for more public money to reclaim the land that it has bought. Subsequently, it has to use more public money to build on the sites. Therefore, we are talking about three bites at the cherry. Public money will be used three times—100 per cent. grant to buy the land, 100 per cent. public money to reclaim it and again 100 per cent. public money to build on it.
The second amendment is aimed at increasing to 100 per cent. the amount of grant that is eligible for private enterprise. The purpose is to put the grant for private enterprise on all fours with what the corporation will enjoy. My hon. Friend was at pains, if that is the right phrase, to stress in Committee that a great step forward has been taken and that private enterprise, which had been restricted to a 50 per cent. grant, would be eligible for an 80 per cent. grant. However, he had some difficulty in acknowledging that, even though the Government were increasing the grant to 80 per cent., they were discriminating against private enterprise by 20 per cent. He had to accept that in spite of the generous uplift from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. he still could not go the whole way and put private enterprise on the same footing as local authorities and the corporation.
My hon. Friends and I accept that local authorities may be in a special and privileged position because they own about two-thirds of the derelict and dormant land. That land is owned either by local authorities or nationalised industries. We accept that local authorities may need to have special consideration and 100 per cent. grant but we cannot stomach the fact that the corporation is to be given the same advantage. The House will appreciate that it is not a landowner and that it does not own derelict, dormant


or vacant land. Why should it be put in a special and privileged position when private enterprise, which owns so much of this land, will not enjoy the same privilege? Many of my hon. Friends felt that the Government, in a most curious way, were discriminating against private enterprise.
9.45 am
The idea of reclaiming land has been talked about a great deal in the House and outside. A great deal has been done but it is important to distinguish between reclamation that means environmental landscaping and improving eyesores, coal tips and other industrial waste, and reclamation that means reclaiming wasteland and vacant land which could be used for private development, for building factories, houses, shops and new developments generally. In addition, there is land which at best can merely be grassed over or given some more pleasing appearance. It is important to make these distinctions.
In spite of all the efforts that have been made to reclaim land, according to the Civic Trust there are still about 250,000 acres of derelict land in the principal urban conurbations. Although the Civic Trust did not identify that land, it was principally within the urban conurbations. It may have been excluding spoil tips, coal tips and quarries. The aim of the amendment is to give private enterprise the sort of help that is being offered to the English Industrial Estates Corporation, to enable it to spend money on reclaiming land so that it can be put to beneficial use. That does not mean grassing over tips or giving spoiled land a more pleasing appearance. Beneficial use does not mean only building. It includes creating jobs and a new source of rate income. It is a way of presenting new opportunities. I note that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is nodding his head vigorously and I know that he, too, believes in this concept.
It is true to say that the consultant attached to the inner urban area study—it was one of the Government-sponsored projects in the 1970s—estimated that 12 per cent. of our cities have unused wastelands within them. I am concerned that every city should be given every help, every device and every tool to turn the derelict land within its boundaries into productive use. I fear that the local authority track record is not especially good. Local authorities have had little incentive to spend their ratepayers' money on reclaiming land. Therefore, the Government's announcement that they will give up to 100 per cent. of Government money to reclaim the land is to be welcomed.
We must congratulate the Government on ensuring that the public sector will have no excuse in future for not reclaiming land. I hope that in the ensuing months, once the Bill is enacted, we shall be able to encourage the Minister to take a stringent line with local authorities by questioning him regularly on how many local authorities and which local authorities are reclaiming land, bearing in mind that the Government will have given a sizeable amount of money for that to happen.
Two-thirds of vacant, dormant and derelict land is in public ownership, including the ownership of nationalised industries—my hon. Friend may want to say something about nationalised industries and whether they will be

encouraged in the same way as local authorities—and one-third of dormant wasteland belongs to the private sector. Amendment No. 2 concentrates on that matter.
A 100 per cent. grant for the public sector might make local authorities revitalise and reclaim their two-thirds of public land, but the Government seem to be less enthusiastic about the remaining one-third of dormant land or waste land which is under private ownership. Why is it waste land? Primarily because the private owner can see no way in which he can release that land and make a profit. He cannot do so, either because he cannot get the right planning consents to build on the land or do whatever he wishes on the land, or because it would cost so much to reclaim it, to make the soil good and put in the infrastructure and services, that he has let it lie dormant rather than spend money that he knows would be lost as a result.
The Government have increased the grant for private owners of derelict waste land. They can now apply to the Government for an 80 per cent. grant, formerly 50 per cent. As has been rightly said by many professional organisations, including the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, although 80 per cent. is better than 50 per cent., local private owners of derelict land will not wish to reclaim their land if they still lose 20 per cent. Furthermore, not only will they lose 20 per cent., but unless my hon. Friend says something to local authorities about the stringencies and restrictions of their structure plans, which prohibit certain developments on such land, there will be no movement in the private sector.
In Committee the Minister said that £1 million of the £45 million set aside for land reclamation was for the private sector. Two per cent. of the public moneys that the Government are making available is available to 33 per cent. of the owners of derelict land. He also said that all the £1 million that had been put aside had not been spent. The reason was that there was little incentive for the private sector to spend it. Perhaps the Minister will explain how much of the £45 million has been spent by local councils and how much was used for the development and reclamation of land for productive use or just for landscaping and environmental purposes.
Therefore, the Government are committed to land reclamation, which is in order and supported by both sides of the House. The Government are committed to city revitalisation, which is supported by Conservative Members and, I am sure, by Opposition Members. Conservative Members are committed to supporting and encouraging private enterprise. The Bill helps private enterprise, but it does not help it enough.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are committed to fair competition and that to have this discrimination between the public and private sector can only be described as unfair competition?

Mr. Steen: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. That is our concern. Conservative Members feel strongly about that matter. We are letting down the private sector when we are committed to support it.
My final point concerns the whole House and is about the amount of good agricultural land that is being used for urban sprawl. The Minister knows that I have been tackling that problem. I am not St. George and there are many dragons, but I have been tackling that problem for


some years because of its evasive nature. The most comprehensive statement on it came from the Minister in Committee. However, there are still many difficulties that the House has a right to reconsider. In the context of the Bill, which is aimed at releasing derelict land, if the private sector does not release its land, we shall continue to build and take green field sites beyond the city boundaries and eat away at agricultural land.
There is some dispute about how much agricultural land is being eroded. As I explained in Committee, the second land utilisation study by Dr. Alice Coleman suggested that as much as 60,000 acres of agricultural land had been lost in each of the past 10 years and that the amount was increasing.
I asked the Minister a question on 21 May this year, in reply to which he said that the amount of agricultural land that was lost had been reducing from 45,000 acres a year to only 23,000 acres a year between 1975 and 1980. Dr. Coleman thought that it had been increasing. Of course, 23,000 acres a year is still a hefty figure.
On 4 March 1981 the Minister's Department contradicted that statement and said that in the five years until 1979 the average annual loss was about 100,000 acres of which 30,000 acres a year was taken from urban development. To confuse the matter further, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when asked a similar question on 16 April 1981, stated:
The average yearly loss of agricultural land to development or other uses, excluding woodlands, in England in the five-year period ending June 1980 was … 45,800 acres".—[Official Report, 16 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 421.]
No one knows how much land is being lost. The Minister accepts that it is necessary to ensure that we obtain information from the agricultural industry, but he does not have that information. On that basis, how can he say that 45,000 acres a year have been taken from agricultural land, and that the figure has dropped between 1975 and 1980 and is now only 23,000 acres? If my hon. Friend does not have the information, I do not see how the Ministry can say that the figure is decreasing.
Dr. Alice Coleman is the person on the ground, who has done the utilisation study. She says that because derelict land is not utilised in inner urban areas, the number of acres of agricultural land being lost is increasing and will continue to increase. That is another reason why the amendment is so important.
Everything needs to be done by the Government and local government to persuade the public sector, nationalised industries, the English Industrial Estates Corporation and the private sector to utilise their derelict land and reclaim it. If the maximum effort is not made, green field sites and agricultural land will continue to be destroyed by urban sprawl.
One of the reasons why my hon. Friends and I tabled the amendment was to give my hon. Friend early warning that we think that the number of good agricultural acres outside city centres will increasingly be taken for development work until the Government made every effort to reverse a process that has been going on for decades. That is what is in our minds and that is the purpose of the amendments. We want to see the Government committed to the principle of encouraging private enterprise in a similar way to the way in which they are supporting the public sector.

10 am

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I shall not detain the House unduly, but I wish to emphasise some of the points that we tried to make in Committee.
In the West Midlands, in the city of Birmingham and in my own constituency of Yardley, there is great interest in the reclamation of derelict land and in ensuring that the process is maintained. I pay tribute to the progress already made by the public sector in land reclamation all over the country, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) as well as in my own. Nevertheless, Acocks Green in my area has one of the largest amounts of vacant land in Birmingham, so for me this is also a personal problem.
It should not be thought that the number of hon. Members here today in unserried ranks reflects the interest of the general public in continued progress towards the refurbishment of our cities, the sweetening of sour land, the pulling down of derelict buildings and the regeneration of the land. There is enormous interest among the general public and throughout the House. We have seen decades of the bulldozer in action. The city of Birmingham has cleared about 22,000 houses in 14 years. We must now see that starter homes are built for the people.
To carry out that process, we must use both arms—the public arm and the private arm. Jack the Ripper has ripped cities apart, and all the art and skill of the cosmetinc surgeon is now required to refurbish them. A one-armed surgeon is not sufficient. We must use not only the public sector but the private sector, in which people are often attempting to reclaim their own land. Some local authorities regard the amount of land in private ownership, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree quoted as 33 per cent., as minimal. Unfortunately, the figures, like the scriptures, can be quoted by the Devil for his own purposes. Many people believe that as much as 40 per cent. or 42 per cent. of the land remains in the private sector. I argued the case to the Under-Secretary of State in Committee and I pointed out that in the past there had been no incentive for the private sector to take part in the regeneration process because only 50 per cent. of the net loss incurred could be recouped. I am therefore grateful for the increase to 80 per cent., but it is still not good enough and it does not compare with the 100 per cent. that goes back to the public sector.
The builder or reclaimer in the private sector will not be interested in making a loss on what he does. Practical people or corporate bodies will not be prepared to enter into a reclamation formula that involves passing on to the eventual purchaser or user a non-viable proposition. If the site costs are high, all those costs might have to be passed on to the first-time purchaser of a starter home, who might not be able to pay so much. He might not be able to find the necessary deposit or have the status to match the repayment requirements. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers states that in Wakefield the extra cost in the reclamation of a difficult site for homes was £800 per unit. As it was not viable to pass that amount on, the project did not develop. There is therefore a risk that such areas of privately owned land may not be reclaimed and may stick out like sore thumbs or deserts of disprivilege among the areas being reclaimed by the public sector, many of which have been excellently dealt with.
I took careful note of the comments of the Minister when I raised this matter in Committee. He said that our


contentions were wrong and that we had not proved our case. That is why I seek once again to put to the Government—my own Government, I suppose—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: We do not want them.

Mr. Bevan: —the equal merits of the private sector as compared with the public sector. By this I do not mean the unequal merits and overriding demands of privatisation, which is often done at the expense of the public sector. In this case, it would not be at the expense of the public sector. The private sector would simply be brought up to parity and both sectors would retain their spheres of influence.
Therefore, I claim that there is still disprivilege to the private sector and that it will not be interested in doing as the Minister recommends and carrying out its share of the work. In this context, the Secretary of State said on 6 February:
It is my firm belief that all sectors have a role to play in reclamation and I want to make it possible for the private sector and the nationalised industries to bring forward schemes for reclamation of derelict land in their ownership without the necessity of having to dispose of it to the local authority.
That is quite right, because such a process would have cost a great deal of extra money.
Nevertheless, after the work of the Standing Committee, we still contend that those incentives do not yet exist and that there is a disincentive to the private sector in the net loss incurred, in the need to borrow money at high interest rates and in schemes involving costly site work such as deep piling or the sweetening of land on which gas has been stored.
The situation reminds me of that of the American in Niagara who left instructions that he be buried between his two wives, whom he loved equally, and this was written on his headstone. He said "I have loved both my wives equally and I want to be buried between them, but tip me a little towards Tessie". The same is true of the Bill. It is tipped a little towards Tessie. Tipping is certainly the operative word and Tessie in this instance is the public sector. Surely the Minister should be able to lie equally and at ease between both bodies—the private and the public.
The Minister was kind enough to say that he would look at this again within 12 months. Why does he not do so now? Why do not the Government embrace this within the framework of the Bill and give both sides the opportunity to proceed with this excellent work and reduce the likelihood of green field sites being developed as the only viable alternative?

Mr. John Heddle: One of the great privileges of securing the Adjournment debate on a Friday is that it concentrates the mind wonderfully. Today's business is of somewhat indeterminate length. I thought, therefore, that in order to answer the call from the Chair, whenever it may come, it would be appropriate to attend the House this morning. I am glad that I did. I rise to support in principle the tenor of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee but I have read the Official Report of the proceedings. I do not wish to indulge in the auction involving my hon. Friend—there are few hon. Members

who know more in practical terms about the environmental problems of urban dereliction—but I nevertheless find myself in some sympathy with him.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond favourably to what I have to say about the overall problem of dereliction and waste land. The root of the problem lies in the provision of finance for urban redevelopment. It is not possible in Britain today to acquire areas of redundant land for redevelopment, to provide new infrastructure and to pass on the site either to the public sector or to the private sector owing to the complete lack of discretion given to local authorities, as the agents charged with redevelopment, over how the capital budgets can be used. This problem is a major cause of difficulties over comprehensive redevelopment. It has severely contained dockland redevelopment. It is difficult to co-ordinate capital spending if one has to hawk one's project around up to a dozen different Government Departments and local government departments and agencies for funds. It is little wonder that schemes have never been embarked upon with the speed that is necessary.
Another factor is the practice of local government land management. Complex and obstructive budgetary rules greatly hamper the transfer of land owned by one department and reserved for one use to another use and another department. There is little contact between higher tier and lower tier authorities. There is a strong financial disincentive for local authorities to dispose of their sites. To them the concept of land as a resource barely exists.
The situation of nationalised industry land not required by that industry for its own purposes is chaotic. Each board interprets its own statutory obligations in its own way. The overriding principle is to secure a commercial return on its assets. But the definition of operational land is completely arbitrary and differs between one nationalised industry and the next. It is left to the industry concerned. There is only minimal contact between industries and local authorities, which will be required to renew the land in any event. A great deal of land is left in an appalling condition or encumbered with conditions that make its redevelopment difficult.
What is required is a thorough Government sponsored industry-by-industry review of land management practice carried out at departmental level—

Mr. Steen: Another solution perhaps would be a large State auction where nationalised industries would choose 50 per cent. of the derelict land in their possession that they want to put up and so allow market forces to determine the price for the land.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have read his excellent booklet in which he puts forward the proposition that there should be a nation-wide auction of surplus land owned by the nationalised industries. In principle, my hon. Friend may have a point. It is, however, necessary, in order to control the supply of publicly owned land, not to saturate the market at any one time. An auction would do just that. I caution my hon. Friend in his enthusiasm for a nation-wide auction.
10.15 am
The dilution of the development plan system and the growth of a bargaining approach to planning is one reason why there is still so much derelict land. This is not so much owned now by the public sector. My hon. Friend the


Member for Wavertree mentioned that one-third of derelict land is owned by the private sector. It is because owners of land in the private sector wish to receive a planning gain that the bargaining approach to the development of derelict land is perhaps not too desirable. Unless the Government's initiative contained in the Bill, which I welcome, is successful, the air of dereliction that is already extensive will, I fear, only grow with the development of the microchip. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to say in his Third Reading speech whether his Department is undertaking a national survey of the effect of the microchip—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was, in fact, relating my remarks to the amendment in referring to the revitalisation of derelict land in the context of providing encouragement and incentive through grants of 75 per cent., 80 per cent., 85 per cent., 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. to the private sector. Dereliction will only increase with the development of the microchip. It is at least possible that the microchip will reduce the demand for office and factory space in inner cities. One way to encourage the private sector to provide accommodation that the market needs in the inner cities is by giving it as much grant as possible.
There are other means of encouraging the private sector to develop derelict inner city urban land, not so much by way of grants as by the provision of residential building allowances along the lines of the scheme of industrial building allowances introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 1980 Budget to provide homes in the inner cities. Hand in hand with this initative might go the introduction of a commercial building allowance to enable small shops to be built on this derelict land. These initatives, along with the derelict land grant to which the Bill relates and to which the amendment refers, can breathe new life into old cities.
Local authorities should use their planning powers to stimulate the development of waste land rather than green field sites. They should also control the demolition of buildings on waste and derelict land in order to prevent the creation of further vacant sites. The town and country planning Acts should be amended to require consent for demolition not normally granted in the absence of planning permission for the use of that land. I commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the proposition that land owned by the public sector in general and by nationalised industries in particular that is not required for one of their forward rolling programmes over the next five years should be subject to a vacant land rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree referred, in moving his amendment, to tax relief. It is important that the cost of landscaping or other schemes designed to enhance the environmental value of vacant land should be encouraged by appropriate tax reliefs. I think that every incentive should be given, along the lines of the United States urn aid programme, not only to the public sector, as the Bill does, and not only to the private sector, as my hon. Friend's amendment does, but to the encouragement of voluntary initatives for the enhancement, by temporary use, of idle, vacant and derelict land.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): First, I apologise to the House for the enforced absence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), who served on the Committee. I am sure that he would have wished to be here to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), and Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) discuss the amendment. However, he has engagements in the Principality, and I am sure that the House will understand.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree for the way in which he moved the amendment. I know how strongly he feels that the proposal in the Bill is, in his view and that of his colleagues, a disincentive to the private sector and, as he put it, a piece of unfair treatment. I tried to disabuse my hon. Friend of that in Committee, but I understand his argument that if the Government are committed to private sector development, as they are, steps should be taken to remove the differential in the rates of grant for the public and private sectors.
The main reason why we have produced these differential rates is that there is a differential problem. In most cases, local authorities, particularly in assisted areas and derelict land clearances areas, to which the schemes relate, own a large amount of the derelict land. My hon. Friends are well aware, representing constituencies in Liverpool and Birmingham, that the proportion of derelict land in the ownership of local authorities has steadily increased in recent years. In part, that is due to compulsory purchase having led to the take-over of sites that have long since lost their use, and in part to the fact that local authorities have been encouraged to clear urban dereliction. Of course, those who claim grant under the Bill will have to be the owners of the land, and local authorities own the largest share of derelict land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree asked about the size of the derelict land market. Unfortunately, the last full figures that we have are for 1974. They show that at that time there were about 44,000 hectares of derelict land, of which approximately 33,000 were worth reclaiming. A new survey is being done, and by the end of the year we hope to have a preliminary picture of the up-to-date figures. However, although there has been some movement of derelict land into beneficial use, unfortunately much land has become derelict as a result of industrial decline.
The Government have taken a number of initiatives to try to bring derelict land into beneficial use, as my hon. Friends said. In the context of this Bill, our most important contribution has been to make it clear that grant paid by the Government under this Bill will mainly go to schemes for reclaiming derelict land and putting it into beneficial productive use, whether for industrial or residential purposes. So the Government have an opportunity to influence the way in which derelict land moneys are now spent. Traditionally, those moneys have been spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree said, on open ground policy, grassing over and improvement to the landscape. To date, the vast majority of the funds has been spent in that way. From December, there is the priority scheme, which we call the category A scheme, giving priority to land that is brought into beneficial use. This is where the public sector has a particular and possibly an additional role to play.
As my hon. Friend knows, we have land registers. They are solely public sector registers, whereby local authorities, statutory undertakings and nationalised industries have to declare their holdings of land that are not in beneficial use. There is also the category A scheme, which will operate under this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that the intention is to bring derelict land reclamation very much to bear in the public sector. We are not ignoring the private sector; far from it. However, the main focus of our attention must be directed to the sector which has the largest share of the derelict land problem.
Secondly, I remind my hon. Friend that the private sector will benefit from the schemes that local authorities bring forward. As they involve development, we have asked local authorities to produce schemes which show that a private sector developer is lined up before the grant aid can be paid. In that way, the construction industry and the factory developer, if he is the end purchaser, can provide the real impetus and benefit from the grant aid at the 100 per cent. rate. It is paid to the local authorities as the owners, but we hope that the benefits going to the private sector, particularly to the construction industry, will be substantial.
The rate of grant that we set in the Bill is 80 per cent. for non-local authorities. Incidentally, that is the rate for nationalised industries, too. So the rate is 100 per cent. for local authorities, and 80 per cent. in the derelict land clearance areas and assisted areas for private sector operators and the nationalised industries. There is no difference for private sector operators and nationalised industries in those areas. In that way, we are lifting from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. the incentive to reclaim.
I accept that the private sector may not find this the most attractive prospect, but we should bear it in mind that that sector has owned derelict land for a long time. It must accept that it has owned land that has fallen into dereliction, but has done nothing much about it. So the Government decided to do something about the grant rate. If it is not possible for the private sector to respond to this, as I said in Committee, we shall review the situation in due course, but I am not prepared to respond positively today to my hon. Friend's request to lift, as of now, the 80 per cent. level in the Bill.

Mr. Steen: Will my hon. Friend clarify what he has said? Local authorities get 100 per cent. if they reclaim land which they own. The private sector gets 80 per cent. for reclaiming land in its ownership, and nationalised industries get only 80 per cent. if they reclaim land in their ownership. As nationalised industries own a great deal of land, why is the English Industrial Estates Corporation given 100 per cent. for reclaiming land, although it does not own any land?

Mr. Shaw: I said in Committee that the English Industrial Estates Corporation is responsible for regeneration in assisted areas for industrial purposes—in other words, for the building of factories in assisted areas. It is an agent of regional policy. In Scotland and Wales, development agencies have the same functions. The English Industrial Estates Corporation was included in the Bill so that it could have the same grant that is available in Wales to the Welsh Development Agency, and in Scotland to the Scottish Development Agency. I accept

that it is an agency of a different kind. It is a wholly owned Government agency, but its function is to assist in regional policy, whereas local authorities in assisted areas or derelict land clearance areas have a local function to try to deal with land in their ownership. I accept my hon. Friend's concern. This agency is not one of which he approves, but I believe that there are many agencies of which he does not approve.

Mr. Steen: Why, leaving the English Industrial Estates Corporation on one side, is there discrimination against nationalised industries? Why are they receiving only 80 per cent? Surely the Government are anxious for British Rail, the British Gas Corporation and the water boards to be rid of their derelict land. If they are given only 80 per cent., there can be no incentive at all for them to do so.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he says that we must give everybody the same rate of grant, but on the other he says that he does not want to give the public sector more cash if it can be avoided. We must try to strike a balance.
The nationalised industry operating in a derelict land clearance area has more incentive than previously. I told my hon. Friend in Committee, and I repeat it now, that if this measure does not result in a substantial improvement in the rates of derelict land reclaimed, we will, amongst other things, look at the rates of grant. I cannot tell my hon. Friend that that will be done soon because the major factor that will release derelict land on to the market will be the return of economic activity within the construction industry and the private sector. As has been cogently argued, the private sector or the nationalised undertaker will be least able to get rid of that land which has substantial costs attached before it can be brought into beneficial use.
There will always be the problem of creating the correct conditions in which a drive to return derelict land into beneficial use can succeed. While grant aid is important, it is not the crucial factor that will suddenly result in a major surge of development of such land.

Mr. Den Dover: Is the Minister willing to look at the level of grant, whether it be 80 per cent. or 100 per cent., in the next 12 months? He said in Committee that he would but in the last few minutes he has created some uncertainty in my mind.

Mr. Shaw: I said in Committee that we would review this. I do not think that it would be sensible to review it within 12 months. If I told the House that an early review was intended, there would be an even greater delay in the private sector's response to the problem. If it felt that the rate embodied in the Bill would be increased, It would delay any scheme for reclaiming derelict land. Therefore, that would be unwise. The announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech that the rate of grant was to be altered probably delayed for some months any schemes that the private sector might have brought forward. My intention, and I trust that of my hon. Friend, is to see that schemes are brought forward as quickly as possible. Therefore, I do not intend to review the matter as quickly as I said in Committee.
I should like to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Wavertree, Yardley and Chorley (Mr. Dover) how the measures are proceeding in their areas. They could provide


important evidence in that regard. I cannot help but feel that the energy that my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree directs to these matters will allow him to provide me with such information.
I cannot accept the amendments that are before the House. I understand the extreme keenness with which they are supported and the principle that is at stake. However, the balance that has been struck in the Bill is right at this stage. It would be wrong to move further on the grant aid that is made available to the private and public sectors.
I hope that all my hon. Friends will agree that more should be done to bring derelict land into beneficial use and that the Bill will contribute towards that end.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the Minister for his generous remarks. Had he been able, he would probably have made concessions. The amendment was tabled because it was felt that there were certain anomalies. The Minister's speech today has made us even more sure of those anomalies, and not only among the private sector, since the nationalised industries are now lumped together with private industry. The Bill will not go as far as it could usefully go. Although the Government have made a brave move in the right direction, it is not anywhere near far enough and, unfortunately, it will not help to reclaim the land that the Government and Conservative Members are committed to reclaiming.
None the less, there is little advantage in dividing the House, even though we feel strongly that an opportunity is being lost. Therefore, it would be in the best interests to withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 36, after 'where', insert
'application for the grant is or was made, or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. Shaw: These are technical amendents. As the Bill stands, the power to make a derelict land grant under the reoealed or superseded legislation is saved only in cases where actual expenditure is incurred before the commencement of the new Act. However, schemes will be approved under the former powers where expenditure will occur after the commencement of the new Act. Unless these amendments are made, fresh applications will have to be made. That is an important technical point which I wanted to put on record, to which I hope the Committee will agree.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

POWERS OF WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Amendments made:
No. 4, in page 7, line 13, after 'where', insert 'application for the grant is or was made, or'.
No. 5, in page 7, line 21, after 'where', insert 'application for the grant is or was made, or'.— [Mr Giles Shaw.]

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Ted Graham: I shall be brief, but I must justify my presence somehow. I have had to exercise

enormous restraint as I was not privy to the exercise that Conservative Members were determined to engage in, quite justifiably, today.
It has often been said that some Bills are modest measures. Indeed, this is a modest measure, without pretensions, but we consider its intentions are good and that is why the official Opposition will give the Bill their unqualified support on Third Reading. The Government may feel that it is unfair that, even when they are anxious to make more money available to rid our countryside of the scars and wounds caused by either industrial plunder or sheer neglect, they get little credit for their best endeavours. To some extent, that has been their own fault.
The Bill widens the scope for grants to the public and private sectors. In that way, initiatives to clean up our countryside or urban landscape are not left solely to the public sector. Conservative Members have shown an ungenerous and carping attitude that is not shared by Labour Members.
The Government are at fault if they assert that this year total grants of about £45 million will be increased but are unable to say by how much. References to these matters being contained within the £70 million grant for urban renewal projects serve only to confuse. I should not like to use the word "deceive". Many people will be exceedingly angry if what looks like a modest increase in money available turns out to be moonshine. Allowing for inflation, £45 million must be £50 million this year If reclamation is to be positively encouraged in both public and private sectors, a modest increase of about 20 per cent. to £60 million is the minimum that should be contemplated.
I noted that, in Committee, the Minister gave an assurance that the figure of £40 million would be increased. I have watched the situation closely and can tell him that the Opposition substantially support the 13ill because it is seen as an additional weapon to the armoury available to central and local government and to private owners to help clean up centuries of dereliction.
The Bill has been well served by those who have taken a special interest in these matters, not least the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). I wish to pay a justified tribute not only to his knowledge, but to his continued interest in ensuring that the problems that he knows so much about are put right.
The hon. Gentleman rightly argues that it is a crime to plunder the green belt and other green field sites on the edge of urban areas, while allowing sites within urban areas to stagnate, to pollute and appal the eye and the senses. Whether 60,000 acres of good agricultural land are lost every year, or a more modest 30,000 acres, we cannot and need not suffer that loss. The Bill will help to highlight our responsibilities to this and future generations. However, we shall delude no one if we set our aspirations too high. The challenge is enormous, daunting and depressing. We need not only to flatten the pit heaps, to beautify the spoil and to fill in the holes but to face up to our responsibility and to ensure that we do not bury today matter that may poison our children tomorrow.
More than once I have raised the worry that, despite cuts in the inspectorate and the Secretary of State's determination to shed staff wherever possible, Ministers must remember their duty to police the dumping of toxic waste and other poisonous matter so vigorously that all those who seek to avoid the controls will be not only discouraged, but stopped. The problems are deadly


serious, with cowboy operators and often ignorant developers who do not ask too many questions when reclaiming derelict land.
The dangers that I have alluded to are all man-made and are almost beyond the powers of Ministers. There are villains, unscrupulous operators and careless or uncaring individuals. In addition, there is the sheer size of the task. However, I warmly commend the thoughtful and sympathetic approach that the Minister and the Secretary of State have displayed. I accept that the Secretary of State wishes to contribute to this vexed and, I fear, never-ending problem. The best way of doing that is to use the vehicle fashioned by the Bill to fight for more resources and to ensure that both private and public sectors use the measure for all their worth.
On behalf of the official Opposition, I am happy to speed the Bill on to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill

Lords amendments considered

Lords amendment Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 16

ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 13, line 39, at end insert—
(3) Regulations may, in relation to cases to which this section applies, make provision for payments to be made by the Secretary of State to employees in prescribed circumstances in connection with court fees (including sheriff officers' and messengers-at-arms' fees for doing diligence) incurred, or likely to be incurred, by those employees in seeking to enforce decisions by virtue of subsection (2) above.
(4) The regulations may, in particular, make provision for the recovery of payments made under the regulations from persons to whom such payments are made; and any sum so recoverable may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be recovered by deduction from prescribed benefits, ("benefits" having the meaning given by the regulations).
(5) Any payment made by the Secretary of State under the regulations shall be paid out of the National Insurance Fund, and any sums recovered by him under the regulations shall be paid into that Fund.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment enables the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to advance to an employee an amount in respect of court fees payable as a result of invoking clause 16. The amendment appears as a result of points raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). He was anxious that employees who were forced to sue their employers for sick pay might be deterred because the court fees would be exceptionally heavy, ranging between £45 and £50. In Committee, I agreed to consider those points and, as a result, amendments have brought forward from the other place.
Provision is made by way of loan, rather than grant, for the simple reason that in most cases the employee will probably be successful. He will, therefore, recover court fees from his employer as well as the money owed to him. In those circumstances it is only right that where he recovers the court fees, they should be repayable to the State, which advanced them in the first instance. The regulations will also provide that, should he be unable to recover the money because, for example, the employer has gone bankrupt, but he has been reasonably diligent in pursuing his remedy, the requirement to repay the loan will be waived.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), I have to justify my presence here today. I shall not have to ask all the questions that I intended to ask, because the Minister has answered some of the points. The Opposition are extremely grateful for the concession contained in the amendment.
As hon. Members know, it is the lawyers who spot these things, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) dwelt at some length on this matter in Committee and has obviously been successful.
However, what happens when only part of the sum is recoverable? If an employee makes a claim for £80 and the court fee is about £10, the employee may end up with only half of the amount that he claimed. Would the full fee be payable? In other words, is it the first charge on the money that the employee has gained? We wondered whether the regulations would be flexible so that it would be possible to waive a pro rata share of the fee. I do not know how much progress has been made on drafting the regulations, but judging from what the Minister said about the Government taking power to waive the right, in certain circumstances, to pull back those loans, they will clearly be fairly wide. If the Minister has the answers to those questions, I shall be able to sit down.

Mr. Rossi: I reinforce what I said earlier. If the employee shows due diligence about recovering the fees, but has been unsuccessful, we shall not require him to repay the money to us. In the instance that the hon. Gentleman cited, we would regard the employee as having recovered the money due to him, but he would have been short-changed and we would not try to take the fees from him in those circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 26

INTERPRETATION OF PART I AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 21, line 22, at end insert—
(7) In this Part any reference to Great Britain includes a reference to the territorial waters of the United Kingdom adjacent to Great Britain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, we shall discuss Lords amendment No. 14.

Mr. Rossi: The amendments ensure that the Act will extend to territorial waters. Because of recent legislation, there was doubt and we are now removing that doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30

LOCAL SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 24, line 42, leave out from "section" to end of line 43.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall discuss Lords amendment No. 9.

Mr. Rossi: These amendments have been introduced as a result of a desire by war pension groups to have some indication in the Act that local authorities should take into account their power to disregard war pensions. Apart from a statutory disregard of £4, the remainder is at the discretion of local authorities and the amendment underlines that fact.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.

Clause 32

SUBSIDIES TO AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 27, line 34, leave out from "period" to end of line 36 and insert
of twelve months ending with 31st March 1983.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to permit payment of subsidy to local authorities for expenditure that they have incurred prior to Royal Assent in preparation for the introduction of the new scheme.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 39

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 33, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—

SICKNESS BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL INJURY

[50A.]—(1) In any case where—

(a) an employed earner is incapable of work as a result of a personal injury of a kind mentioned in section 50(1) of this Act; and
(b) the contribution conditions are not satisfied in respect of him;

those conditions shall be taken to be satisfied for the purposes of paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, (b) of section 14(2) of this Act as that paragraph applies in relation to sickness benefit.

(2) In the case of a person who—

(a) is entitled, by virture of this section, to sickness benefit under subsection (2)(b) of section 14; and
(b) is not also entitled to sickness benefit under subsection (2)(c) of that section;

the weekly rate at which sickness benefit is payable shall be determined in accordance with regulations.

(3) In subsection (1) above "contribution conditions" means—

(a) in the case of a person who is under pensionable age, the contribution conditions specified for sickness benefit in Schedule 3, Part I, paragraph 1; and
(b) in the case of a person who has attained pensionable age but has not retired from regular employment, the contribution conditions for a Category A retirement pension specified in Schedule 3, Part I, paragraph 5."

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 23.

Mr. Rossi: I understand that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) would like an explanation of the amendments. Amendment No. 13 is minor and beneficial. It ensures that after injury benefit has been abolished people over pensionable age who are injured at work, as well as those under pensionable age, will be entitled to State sickness benefit at the standard rate until that benefit comes to an end under the normal rules—that is, until the person retires or reaches the deemed retirement age of 65 for women and 70 for men.
Amendment No. 23 is consequential on the provision in clause 39 waiving the contribution conditions for sickness benefit for the industrially injured. After sickness benefit has been paid for 168 days, the long-term invalidity benefit becomes payable. It is intended that it should be payable to those for whom the contribution tests have been waived under clause 39(4). Clearly, it is right, however, that the long-term benefit in such cases should be payable only where the industrial accident or disease continues to be the cause of the incapacity.
The amendment enables regulations to be made to achieve that result. That is why we refer in the amendment to "restricting". I am not sure whether that makes the position clear to the hon. Member. If it does not, I can give an additional explanation.
At present, people who do not satisfy the contribution conditions for sickness benefit and who have an industrial injury receive injury benefit for 156 days. Thereafter, they are not entitled to sickness benefit or invalidity benefit. The Bill provides that when injury benefit is abolished such people will receive sickness benefit and then invalidity benefit if they remain incapacitated from the industrial cause. This is an improvement on existing conditions.
Title to invalidity pension will be earned by industrially injured employees whose sickness benefit is granted under section 50A, to which reference is made in the amendment, because the incapacity is caused by an industrial accident or disease. It makes sense to restrict the provision of the special title so that it remains dependent upon attributing the cause of the incapacity to an industrial accident or disease.
The amendment will enable regulations to be made to prevent invalidity pension in such cases being payable for incapacity which is unrelated to the accident or disease that gave rise to the original qualifying period of 168 days. I appreciate that that is not immediately apparent from the way in which the amendment is drafted, but I hope that the explanation satisfies the hon. Member for Perry Barr.

Mr. Rooker: It does. The Minister kindly sent the Opposition Front Bench a note on the Lords amendments. The problem is that we thought that there was a gain. The Minister has confirmed that there is. We are so unused to any gain for social security beneficiaries from this Government that we wanted confirmation. I am not carping. The Bill has been substantially altered in many respects. We are grateful to the Government for the way in which they have met us on many issues related to the low paid and people who are off sick for long periods. Because of the way in which the amendment was drafted, it appeared to take away that which we understood was there. I am grateful to the minister.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member viewed us with some suspicion at the beginning of the Bill's progress. He now appreciates that we have tried to be flexible and helpful wherever possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PERIODS OF ENTITLEMENT DO NOT ARISE

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 41, line 11, leave out "twelve weeks" and insert "three months"

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendments bring the definition of short contract workers in the statutory sick pay scheme into line with that in the employment protection legislation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) for raising the matter originally.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 27 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL

Ordered,
That the Second Reading Committee on the Duchy of Cornwall Management Bill be discharged.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Iron and Steel Bill [Lords] notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day — Airey Houses

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise the subject of the sale of Airey houses under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act, and the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Abdella, of Lichfield.
When I wrote to your office on 16 June, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether I might have your permission to raise this matter. I said that I should like to raise the subject of the sale of Airey Houses under the right-to-buy provisions and the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Abdella. The important word "and" is omitted from the Order Paper. I mention that because I wish to raise, for the consideration of the Minister, the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Abdella, and the whole principle of the sale of Airey houses under the right-to-buy provisions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his presence on the Front Bench. He is deputising for his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I am particularly grateful to him because he has returned from a Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg to be present today.
His presence is a particular pleasure to me because the matter that I wish to raise is of concern not only to 250 tenants and former tenants of properties owned by the Lichfield district and Tamworth borough councils, but, by the nature of the problem, to all right hon. and hon. Members. Earlier this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) told me that the problem of the sale of Airey houses under the right-to-buy provisions was causing concern in his constituency. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who because of Government duties is mute in such matters, is indicating his opinion in a north-south direction.
I regret the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) because he has a deep and comprehensive knowledge of the construction industry in general. I believe that a firm with which his name was associated was given the responsibility, shortly after the war, by the then Minister of Housing to erect Airey houses in most constituencies in England and Wales, but not in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has given me a document that describes the Airey system of construction. The houses were designed by—

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday Sittings).

Orders of the Day — Rail Disputes

11 am

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about strikes on the railways. As the House knows, the National Union of Railwaymen called a full strike by its members on the London underground

as from midnight last night and has called a full strike by its members on British Rail from midnight on Sunday, 27 June.
Neither of those strikes is necessary, nor will they do anything but damage those who pursue them, hurt the travelling public grievously and endanger many people's livelihoods. In the case of British Rail, irreparable damage will be inflicted on the railways. Yet all that is being asked is that productivity undertakings for which pay increases have already been given for last year, should be delivered.
In the case of London Transport, it is patently clear that the strike decision taken by NUR is a cynical and opportunistic move. There is no redundancy threat, the service cuts are minimal and are anyway necessary for the long term. London Transport management has clearly bent over backwards to negotiate reasonably. However, the union leaders are now switching the strike issue to pay. The union executive is doing this without giving the normal notice and has brushed aside the normal negotiating procedures in its haste to find any excuse for joining in the damage and disruption. It is, therefore, nothing short of shameful that the political leaders of the Greater London Council have given explicit support to this pointless attack on London Transport users.
In view of the serious and immediate impact of both these strikes on London commuters, a series of measures are being taken by the Metropolitan Police from first thing on Monday morning, and it would perhaps be helpful to set these out immediately so that all the travelling public can make their preparations in good time.
The Metropolitan Police will take exceptional measures to keep traffic flowing on all main routes; emergency car parking will be provided on a large scale, and the police will be suspending the enforcement of parking restrictions and parking meters, in all side streets. The police will be giving more detailed guidance to the travelling public over the next couple of days, as will the AA and RAC. The police in other cities will also take all necessary steps to cope with the effects on traffic of the British Rail strike.
We shall be asking all radio stations to perform their invaluable service in providing up-to-date information to help all those who need to travel.
If traffic is to be kept moving, and hardship kept to a minimum, the public must avoid needless journeys. They should make early arrangements for sharing their cars, and should do all that they can to stagger their journeys.
Employers can help by encouraging their staff to organise staggered hours and car-sharing schemes, and by arranging for deliveries to be made outside rush hours.
The travelling public are now under assault for no good reason and the railways now face a disastrous future. Tens of thousands of workers are being led down dark and dangerous paths. They would be wise now to do all within their power to see that the strikes are called off.

Mr. Albert Booth: Does the Secretary of State realise that the House was expecting from him a statement about causes and the Government's reactions to them, rather than a statement about the consequences of the dispute? His statement will be seen as both complacent and disappointing. A majority of hon. Members realise that the travelling public are anxious that the Government should take steps to avert the strike, instead of merely trying to ameliorate the tremendous damage that the strike will inevitably do to the travelling public.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that discussions at ACAS between BR management and unions have revealed that the gap between the two sides is not so wide as to prevent a major breakthrough on the outstanding productivity issues, if only the Government are prepared to demonstrate to the board a willingness to support it in bringing forward the 5 per cent. payment towards its due date?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the board's inflexible hard line is being dictated by Ministers, who appear to relish the idea of a long and bitter dispute with British Rail? Will he acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of railway workers have demonstrated a willingness to co-operate in the development of a good railway service and that they will back their executive committee to the hilt in the dispute because they believe that that is the only way of conducting a claim in the interests of maintaining a proper public service?
Will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to intervene in the dispute? Will he take up the proper role of the Government as the representatives of the travelling public and the railways' bankers and construct some genuine tripartite negotiations to avoid a strike, the consequences of which will not only be immediately damaging to the travelling public, but may be permanently damaging to the future of our railway service?

Mr. Howell: I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's silence on the merits of the strike that he is not prepared to condemn the appalling damage that is to be inflicted on the travelling public, the railway industry and its future.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about causes, but he and the country know what they are. In the case of British Rail, it is the management's rightful determination, which should be supported by all who want to see an efficient railway, to seek the productivity agreements and undertakings for which pay increases have already been accorded and which are now due. In the case of London Transport, the cause appears to be opportunism to maximise the chances of trying to strangle London. The right hon. Gentleman knows those causes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about intervention by ACAS. That is an independent body and, like everyone else, I hope that it will be able to bring home to the parties, especially the unions, the appalling dangers of the path on which they are set.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to inflexibility by British Rail, but in the past few days BR has offered new arrangements by which some of the productivity difficulties could be overcome. Those arrangements were turned down by the union.
The Government and, I think, the board and most workers in the railway industry want a good and efficient service. We are committed to that good and efficient service. Ten major investment projects are being carried through or approved and another eight are in the pipeline. That makes nonsense of the claim that there is no commitment to a good railway system. The question is whether the unions will allow us to achieve it.
The Government are not prepared to intervene. If it is a question of intervention, it should be intervention by those, particularly in the industry, who are in a position to stop the union executive leading its members over a cliff

edge. That is the sort of intervention that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been calling for, and I am sorry that he did not feel it opportune to do so today.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Are not the strikes against the interest of not only railwaymen, but railway users? As the NUR is apparently throwing agreed procedures overboard, does my right hon. Friend recall a phrase once coined by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who referred to a
tightly knit group of politically motivated men"—[Official Report, 20 June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 42.]
and should not the members of the NUR and ASLEF wake up to the dangers that they are facing in relation to jobs as a result of the actions of their leaders?
Would it not be rather a good idea if Mr. Buckton and Mr. Weighell went along this afternoon to Victoria and Waterloo stations and explained their position to my constituents and gave my constituents an opportunity to say what they think about the strike?

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The events have happened only recently and it is not yet possible to disentangle the reasons for the decisions, but it cannot be denied that there appear to be no good industrial relations reasons for the decision of NUR's London Transport divisions to strike. That point needs to be made clear, especially to those who are being asked to support the action.
Commuters will be placed in great difficulty. They should be left in no doubt that they are now being challenged by decisions taken by a union executive, or by people in that union executive, which appear to be based on political opportunism and have very little to do with serious industrial relations matters.

Mr. Michael English: Is the Minister's policy the same as his predecessor's? Does he still adhere to the Government's policy of requiring intercity services to break even and of subsidising London commuters? Could he not give British Rail a bit more money by dropping the subsidy to the prosperous London middle classes?

Mr. Howell: The policy has been pursued by successive Governments and is broadly correct. It is that the inter-city and freight services should aim at profitability—although I am afraid that it is not there at the moment—and that commuter services, rural services and socially desirable services should be supported by the taxpayer.
Although one would never believe it from some of the remarks made by Opposition Members and by critics of the Government, the Government have supported, and are supporting, the rail system, through social grant, at a higher level in real terms than ever before in its history. Last year I approved, and this year I continued to approve, a level of social grant up to £100 million higher, in real terms, than in 1980. That is what the Government wish to do. Whether the unions, through their foolish actions, challenge that purpose and make it impossible to proceed on that course is a question that will have to be resolved over the next few weeks.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the Government's policy in giving more money in subsidy to British Rail than has been given by any other


Government in our history? Will he confirm that it is not the role of the Government to manage British Rail and that the dispute should be settled between management and unions within the rail industry? Finally, will he assure the country that the needs of the travelling public are paramount?

Mr. Howell: We shall do all that we can to minimise the hardship that the travelling public will face. Undoubtedly there will be grave difficulties, particularly if the London underground system and the British Rail system continue to be completely on strike.
The British Railways Board is rightly committed to pursuing its search for productivity, and every support should be given to it in its efforts.
The Government subsidy to British Rail has been substantial and has been increased, but it must be realised that the amount of money that the taxpayer is prepared to go on paying into British Rail, in continued investment and new equipment, on top of the substantial programme that has been taking place and in terms of social grant for current costs, is bound to be constrained when it is seen that that investment is not being properly manned and that current costs are not being curbed in the way that they are in the rest of industry. The taxpayer will look for a better performance in those areas if there is to be encouragement to put more money into British Rail in future.

Mr. William Pitt: Does the Minister agree that it might have a salutary effect on the leaders of the Greater London Council were they to talk to some of the stranded commuters in steaming cars and bus queues this morning? We are in a state of national emergency, and the effects of the strike will be profound not only while it is taking place but for many weeks after. Will the Government use their utmost powers to be conciliatory in the matter and try to bring the unions and management together to effect a proper solution?

Mr. Howell: I think that the Government, together with the public, would wish the strikes not to take place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that the best way for the strikes not to take place is for the union executive members who have set out on this extremely dangerous course and are taking their members along with them—although I read in the newspapers that some of them are not at all willing—to think again and draw back from the precipice. That would be the best kind of conciliation, and that is where reasonableness is required in the face of the position taken by British Rail, which is asking only for what it has paid, and the position taken by London Transport management, which has been extremely conciliatory. It has leaned over backwards to meet the worries of the unions. Two of the three unions concerned—ASLEF, as it happens, and the staff union—were ready to call off the underground strike on the basis put forward by London Transport management, but the NUR turned it down because, apparently, it wants a strike.

Mr. Neil Thorne: In view of the unreasonable attitude of the union leadership, will my right hon. Friend reconsider even those projects that are at present under consideration by British Rail involving the use of taxpayers' money? Clearly, the public must have value for money.
Will my right hon. Friend hazard a guess as to how many jobs will be lost to British Rail for every £10 million lost in revenue as a result of the strike, particularly if producers find other means of transport?
Will my right hon. Friend urgently review London Transport and make some alternative arrangements for its control?

Mr. Howell: The Government have always made it clear that further support for British Rail must go hand in hand with productivity improvements. That remains the position, whether we are talking about electrification, resignalling, or any of the other major projects in the pipeline. That must be the sensible way forward. I believe that the vast majority of people think that it is the sensible way forward to the modern and efficient railway system that we could have if it were allowed by the unions.
I can make no estimate of job losses, but I remind the House that there are many customers on British Rail who, after the last disruption, were thinking of leaving British Rail, and who will not automatically come back after any further disruption. Indeed, I suspect that many of them will go for all time if the present industrial action goes forward.
As to the future arrangements between the GLC and London Transport, I have to agree with my hon. Friend that recent events tend to confirm the growing doubts about the competence of the GLC to preside over and run the London Transport system—or, indeed, anything else. I have put to the GLC the need to come forward with some sensible plans for the future. The GLC knows that there are no problems on the legal side about the future, because I have said that the Government would consider whether any changes in the law are needed for 1983 onwards.
The Government are ready to accept the need for a substantial subsidy to support a good London Transport system for London's users, so all the necessary ingredients for a sensible system are there, but I fear that the ingredient of common sense at the political end of the GLC seems to be severely lacking.

Mr. Alf Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that nobody wants the travelling public, especially the people of London, to suffer hardship, and that his statement will be seen as an example of complacency? His only contribution to the great crisis that we are facing, particularly in London, has been to talk about car parking and to blame the trade unions.
Is it not about time that the Secretary of State exercised his responsibility and called together the people in these sad disputes, so that a quick settlement can be achieved?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to address his remarks to the union executive concerned, which has taken precipitate action without, I believe, the full support and willing co-operation of all its members. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about London Transport. He should address his remarks to the Greater London Council, whose leaders have given active encouragement to inflaming the strike action. I do not see how people can say that they do not want the London traveller to be hurt when they are prepared to take action which actively inflames the dispute.

Mr. Roger Moate: It is over 50 years since we were threatened with a shutdown of British Rail and of London Transport trains. Does that not illustrate the serious nature of the crisis that the transport system and the travelling public are now facing?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the decision of the NUR to shift the London Transport dispute on to the basis of pay rather than an argument about timetables means that it has deliberately and flagrantly waived all the negotiating procedures and thrown away the requirement to give three weeks' notice? Does not that emphasise the apparent political motivation of those concerned? If the official Opposition will not condemn the strike, may we invite them to condemn the flagrant breach of the normal negotiating procedures? That might in turn help to produce an early settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is correct. The normal procedure is for the NUR to give three weeks' notice of strike over a pay dispute. In the case of London Transport, I am informed that pay discussions were continuing and that no final offer had been made or discussed, yet the NUR decided to waive the normal three weeks' notice and call a strike on pay from Monday.
I repeat the invitation extended to the Opposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) to make some condemnation of that extraordinary behaviour. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that combined strikes called on the underground rail system and the surface rail system have not been seen for well over 50 years.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his comments make it abundantly clear that he is far more concerned, as a Conservative, to condemn the Greater London Council than to administer the great Department for which he has responsibility? Is he aware, further, that the public servants in the railways and in public transport in general are some of the finest in the world? Why are the Government embarking on a confrontation policy with people such as nurses and the railwaymen in pursuance of an outdated economic strategy?

Mr. Howell: I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the dedication of many people in the railway system and in public transport services generally. That needs recognising and acknowledging fully, and I speak from personal experience when I do so. But when the hon. Gentleman talks about the Government embarking on a confrontation course, he has the matter upside down. I have described as accurately as I can what is happening. It is that the executive of the NUR, in effect, has declared an assault upon the public by calling the strike for midnight on British Rail and by calling the strike, for very dubious industrial relations reasons—in fact, for reasons not connected with industrial relations at all—on the London underground. It is not the Government who are embarking on this course—it is the unions. In my view they are most unwise, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his considerable authority to encourage them to pull back.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more people travel into London every day from Orpington station—nearly 20,000 of them—than from any other station, and that they will suffer considerable misery and hardship as a result of this strike, but that they want me to tell the Government and the railway authorities to stand firm and resist the blackmail of the rail unions?

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's message.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Is the Secretary of State aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I share his concern about the competence and motivations of the Greater London Council in this area? Will he accept that we condemn the proposed strike action, that we deplore the intransigence that is bringing it about and that we hope that even at this late hour common sense will prevail?

Mr. Howell: I am glad to hear the clear condemnation by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends of this senseless action. The more people, regardless of party, who can bring home to the union executive what a disastrous course it is set on and how damaging it will be to the public—for no good reason at all—the better, and the better hope there will be in this very difficult situation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three of the hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye and then, at the end, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) before moving on.

Mr. Timothy Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that commuters in my constituency will have to go through hell over the next few days and weeks? Does he appreciate, further, that they will be prepared to go through that hell if, at the end of the day, major changes in working practices on British Rail are the result? Therefore, does he agree that this dispute should not be limited to one narrow issue but should be widened to embrace all the problems of productivity with which we have been grappling over the past few years, so that at the end of the day we can settle all these difficult problems?

Mr. Howell: I know that the British Railways Board is determined to secure the productivity improvements necessary to a modern railway. It has suggested ways in which that can be done. It linked last year's pay offer to that and produced an increased offer in line with productivity undertakings. Those undertakings have not yet been met by the unions. The British Railways Board is right to insist that now they should be, and it should receive full support in doing so.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has the full support of Government Back Benchers? Does he recognise the pleasure that he has given by saying that he and his Cabinet colleagues will examine the political links between London Transport and its present masters? In seeking to hasten the moment when a decision about London Transport's political future can be taken, will he consider taking powers to entrust at least part of the London underground and bus network to private enterprise?

Mr. Howell: I note my hon. Friend's views on this matter, which are of great interest. As he knows, the Select Committee on Transport is looking at the future organisation of London Transport in the context of the best way in which to serve Londonders and their needs. I believe that private enterprise and private capital probably can play a larger part in that respect in the future, but we must await the report of the Select Committee.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole country will have noted that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) utterly failed to use this opportunity, with his


colleagues, to condemn this mindless militancy which will ruin our railway system for many years to come? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that commuters in my constituency and elsewhere resent strongly this attempt to destroy the system which they have used for many years to get to their places of work? Throughout the next few days, will he remind the British public constantly that the only future for public transport must be through increased productivity?

Mr. Howell: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. He talks about mindless militancy. I am sure that everyone in the House—certainly the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and members of his party as well as the other parties—feels equally strongly about this dangerous tendency. Whatever the difficulties—and I realise that there are political difficulties for them—I hope that they will seek opportunities to join in the condemnation of the threats, of which there seem to be some signs, to our party system and to normal and sensible ways of conducting industrial relations.

Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State realise that the Opposition have been protesting to the Government for more than a year that the financial framework that they have set for both the GLC and British Rail inevitably would lead to a crisis and a breakdown of services? Will he come clean about the actual drop in rail investment expenditure over the past two years? Will he tell us of the drop in rail investment expenditure between 1980 and 1981, and the drop that will occur as between 1981 and this year unless a major change is brought about?
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the railway unions which he is condemning have co-operated with British Rail in enormous manpower savings over the past two years? Will he at least acknowledge that 14,000

posts have been saved in that period? If he joins and encourages his Back Benchers in calling these people mindless militants, he will do nothing to resolve this dispute, but will inflame it, deepen it and make it more bitter—which is the very reverse of the role of a Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Howell: One of the real problems is that, in speaking to the trade unions about the Government's commitment to investment in British Rail, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have not stated the true facts. Some statements made by the Opposition have been a perversion of the truth about the Government's commitment to investment in British Rail, about the fact that the investment ceiling has been maintained at a high level and about the fact that, if there has been a lack of investment, it is because resources have been drained in pointless disputes and in soaring day-to-day costs. Those are the messages that should have been given to the trade unions so that they know where their true interests lie, rather than the demoralising gloom that the right hon. Gentleman chose as his medium.
The unions, especially the NUR, have co-operated in demanning and have delivered on some of the productivity undertakings. However, the NUR has not delivered on some of the main undertakings, such as the guards, freight trains or single manning on passenger trains. It is again a perversion for the right hon. Gentleman to shut his eyes to that and not to emphasise to the unions the dangers of dragging their feet on productivity, because that is where the future of a modern railway system lies. Pay awards have been made on such deals, but the productivity has not been delivered. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to himself, to his party and to Britain to be much more forthcoming in telling the unions and the nation where he and his party stand on the matter.

Orders of the Day — Personal Statement

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the personal statement by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt).

Mr. Tim Eggar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to challenge your decision to proceed to other business, but you will be aware that some Conservative Members wish to make points on behalf of their constituents. In view of your decision to proceed, will you consider an application from me or one of my hon. Friends for an Adjournment debate, after the debate that has been interrupted, to discuss the rail dispute?

Mr. Speaker: I understand completely the anxiety of hon. Members, especially from the London area, who wish to advance their constituents' case this morning. However, I must bear in mind other statements and the time that we give to them. We have spent half an hour on today's statement. I have no doubt that if the strike proceeds there will be further statements or activity in the Chamber. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman asks about the second Adjournment debate. I am not usually asked in public, but if it is possible to help I am willing to help. However, the present Adjournment debate may take up the full time.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a personal statement.
On Friday 19 February 1982 an objection was taken by the Chair on the Second Reading of my Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Bill. The House will recall that the previous Secretary of State gave me an undertaking that the Government would not block the Bill, so I knew that the objection was not from the Government Bench.
Shortly afterwards I received a letter from the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) stating that I had issued a press statement naming him as the objector, assuring me that he had made no such objection and asking me publicly to clear him of any such allegation. Although I did not issue any press statement, I must admit that when questioned by the secretary of Action on Smoking and Health I said that, although it is difficult to locate voices in the Chamber, I had the impression that the objection was made by the hon. Member for Fulham, whom I knew to have previously expressed strong opposition to the Bill in the House. I refer to the Official Report of 9 May 1980, at columns 756–8.
I naturally accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that on this occasion he did not voice an objection. On receipt of his letter, I immediately contacted the secretary of Action on Smoking and Health who, I believe, then made it plain to others concerned that the objection was categorically denied by the hon. Member for Fulham.

Orders of the Day — Airey Houses

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Heddle: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) that I shall not detain the House any longer than is necessary. However, my debate is of great national importance.
Before 11 am I had reminded the House of the origins of the Airey house system. The Airey house was devised by Sir Edmund Airey, a chartered architect of Leeds. The document supplied to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe states that the system
has been selected by the Government as the quickest and most effective means of providing additional new permanent houses to meet the urgent needs of rural areas.
The problem arises out of the sale of Airey houses by numerous councils. They were built between 1946 and 1955 as a limited part of the immediate post-war building programme to accommodate the post-war bulge. In December 1980, the Department of the Environment became aware that defects that had recently been drawn to its attention by Barnsley borough council might affect Airey houses nation-wide. The Government's Building Research Establishment immediately instituted investigations into the alleged problem and concluded that the design of the reinforced concrete columns in those houses was such that they were liable to corrosion and cracking. The effect of the defect is to reduce the life of the houses and to affect their structural integrity with a possible risk to safety in exceptional circumstances.
The document given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone ad Hythe was published about 1952–53 and was issued by the Cement and Concrete Association. It describes the structure of the houses thus:
The structure consists of light reinforced concrete posts of storey height spaced at 18 in. centres in external, spine, and party walls. The posts are positioned on the concrete foundation slab and at first floor level by temporary steel jigs which simplify accurate setting out.
Those are technical terms with which those in the construction industry will be familiar.
The walls are faced externally with special precast concrete slabs and lined internally with insulating fabric and an appropriate wall lining. The first floor and roof members are bolted to the vertical posts, thus tying the structure together. Freedom in planning, based on the 18 in. spacing of wall posts, is possible, and any type of internal finishing may be adopted.
The relevant point of the document is in the next sentence
The system complies with the recommended structural and physical standards laid down by the Inter-Departmental Committee on House Construction appointed by the Ministry of Works, and has been approved by the Ministry of Health for adoption by local authorities.
There are about 26,000 Airey houses in Britain, 250 of which are in my constituency. Lichfield district council owns 172 and Tamworth borough council owns about 70 or 80. Those houses may well have some corrosion or cracking. Until the local authorities have carried out, on the Government's instructions, house-by-house structural surveys, it is difficult to quantify the extent of the structural defects.
However, it is fair to quote from a document published in April 1982 by the Building Research Establishment entitled "Airey houses: technical information and guidance". Paragraph 4, entitled "Assessment of condition and safety", states:


The degree of deterioration of columns in Airey houses has been found to be very variable—in some cases severe corrosion and concrete cracking is now present, in others there is either no cracking or only limited cracking at the column bases. Most cases are between these extremes.
My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Abdella of 33 Beech Gardens, Lichfield, bought their Airey council house under a voluntary arrangement with the Lichfield district council in 1972. It would not be appropriate for me to advise the House of the price that was agreed when the transaction took place. However, the purchasers borrowed their money on a mortgage to enable them to acquire their council house as sitting tenants from the district council.
The publicity given to the Barnsley case, and the publicitiy given generally, and quite rightly, to the Government's commendable action in instructing the Building Research Establishment to carry out a survey of these properties, means that Airey houses in general, whether they have any defects large, small, substantial or minor, have become almost unsaleable.
Mr. and Mrs. Abdella have been told by the agent whom they instructed to place their property on the open market that there was no point in doing so because a previous purchaser that the agent introduced was unable to obtain a mortgage from a reputable building society because building societies are not, as a matter of practice, lending money on mortgage on Airey houses unless and until the Department's findings, based on the Building Research Establishment's surveys, have given Airey houses a completely clean bill of health.
There are two schools of thought and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to shed some light on them. The document that I have read states specifically that Airey houses were erected in accordance with the specification and guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Housing. It seems that there was no intention that these properties should have a limited life, although they were of necessity of prefabricated construction and it was normally assumed that the buildings known as prefabs that were constructed after the war were likely to have a limited life.
If the Airey houses were likely to have a limited life, I question the wisdom of any local authority selling properties of the Airey house type to sitting tenants, either prior to the Housing Act 1980 by voluntary agreement or under the right-to-buy provisions of the 1980 Act.
I shall read to the House three letters. The first letter is from a purchaser in my constituency who, like the Abdellas, has bought under the right-to-buy provisions. The other two letters come from tenants who would, in other circumstances, wish to exercise their right to buy under the provisions of the 1980 Act.
The first letter, which is dated 10 July, was written by Mr. and Mrs. Ken Atkins of 27 Brook Avenue, Wilnecote, Tamworth. It reads:
You may have read the article in the Sun newspaper published on … 24 June 1981, headed 'Hunt for Houses of Danger'. This report has caused both my wife and I some anxiety as we purchased this type of house from the Tamworth Council on April 3 1981.
The only information we have at the time of writing is that there are to be inspections carried out nationally. We have an improvement project on order for new windows and are obviously very concerned as to where we would stand if the findings of the inspections are adverse. We would be very grateful to have the opportunity to talk to you on this matter at your next surgery".
Another of my constituents, Mrs. G. Ward of 12 Beech Gardens, Lichfield, wrote on 12 May as follows:

Dear Sir, I don't know whether you can help me in this matter … My problem is that we are buying a council house at the above address which is an Airey house, you may have heard of these, if not can I just say that the structure of some of these houses has been found to be defective, now they have been checked and from what I can gather some are safe at the moment, others have small amounts of corrosion. My concern is for our future. I know building societies are refusing mortgages on these properties, added to bad publicity we are unable to sell if we wished. Also they are safe now but what for the future? Do we stand to lose our home and money in ten years' time?
Finally, I shall read the letter that I received from Mrs. Wellum of 19, Levett Road, Botany Bay, Lichfield. I have described to the House the position of one tenant who bought prior to the 1980 Act. Mr. and Mrs. Atkins bought under the right-to-buy provisions of that Act. We have had evidence from Mrs. Ward that she and her husband were in the process of buying. Mrs. Wellum writes:
I am writing to see if you can give me some light on the situation of the Airey house we live in, we have had one test done and no news, as we are waiting to buy our own council house we are eager to find out what is going to happen to these, there are reports about every district except Lichfield, if possible I do not want to move because of my job at Whittington Barracks. As my husband and I are 44, we do not want to leave buying a house too late, we both at the moment are in quite good jobs.
I must pay tribute to the way in which the Lichfield district council has handled with sympathy and understanding the fears that I have put to them on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Ward, Mr. and Mrs. Wellum and Mr. and Mrs. Abdella. On 11 June, the director of housing and environmental services of the Lichfield district council, sent a circular to all tenants of Airey houses in the Lichfield district. It read:
On Tuesday, 8 June, 1982 the Housing Committee considered a report on the problems associated with Airey houses and received a petition from tenants. The Committee are satisfied that your house and the remainder of the Airey houses in the council's area are not in immediate danger but to reassure you they have set up a special sub-committee which will consider, as a matter of urgency, what is the best method of securing the future of your home.
You will be aware from articles in the local papers that other authorities have decided to replace their Airey houses. This should not alarm you because where early demolition has been carried out this related to foundation and other problems not connected with the Airey type of construction and I am pleased to say that no such problems have been identified in any Airey house in this district.
The Council is making every effort to reach the right solution. Councillor Hodgetts in chairing the special Sub-Committee has told me that he intends to proceed as quickly as possible and will personally ensure that you are kept as fully in the picture as possible.
As soon as there is anything more positive to tell you, I will write to you again, but until such time may I thank you for your patience and request that you continue to co-operate with the Council's offices and the Consultant Engineers of the County Council who are for the time being continuing with the survey of the structural condition of your Airey house.
To constituents such as Mr. and Mrs Abdella and Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, who have bought their houses, the director of administration of the district council wrote that he had been
asked … to write to you to keep you informed of the Council's intentions with regard to your property … The Committee is satisfied that your house and the remainder of the Airey houses in the Council's area are area not in immediate danger … The Council is making every effort to reach the right solution for all parties and Councillor Hodgetts, in chairing the special Sub-Committee has told me he intends to proceed as quickly as possible … It is hoped that a final report will be submitted to the Housing committee on 14 September, 1982. The Housing Committee has accepted that the Council has a moral commitment to assist those like yourselves who have bought an Airey house and the Council at its meeting on 20 July, 1982 will


be recommended to consider that, having regard to the exceptional circumstances, the Council should be prepared depending upon the circumstances of each individual case to repurchase your property.
The Lichfield district council has adopted a sympathetic, understanding and constructive attitude to a particularly serious problem that is causing great anguish and heartache to many thousands of former council tenants who wish to embark upon the largest single investment of their lives, that of home ownership.
Those people thought that they were buying a property that was structurally sound. After all, such property was constructed in accordance with guidelines and specifications laid down by the then Ministry of Housing, approved by the interdepartmental committee to which I have referred, and confirmed by the Ministry of Health. Unfortunately, these people find that because of the blight that is their plight, they have bought what I can only describe as a pig in a poke.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he can agree with my sentiments that in those exceptional circumstances there is a case to be made for the rights of those poor individuals to be protected. They could not have found out about those inherent and integral structural defects. A structural surveyor could not have taken an Airey house apart, concrete panel by concrete panel, concrete frame by concrete frame, and then dissected that frame and found that the steel reinforcing bar was corroding, then cracking, the concrete frame.
The well-tried and normally adopted path of caveat emptor does not apply in those tragic cases. I invite my hon. Friend to consider in what way he feels the Department of the Environment can help local authorities such as the Lichfield district council and the Tamworth borough council to assist their tenants and former tenants in getting out of that Catch 22 situation.
I have some suggestions to make to my hon. Friend. I commend the Department on having acted with its customary efficiency and speed in instructing the Building Research Establishment. I suggest that it embarks on discussions with the Association of District Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities forthwith—if it has not done so already—to see how the problem can be overcome. The Department should then give permission to the local authorities to buy back Airey houses occupied by former council tenants, now owners, who wish to sell their Airey houses back to the councils, not at cost, as has been offered to Mr. and Mrs. Abdella for the house that they bought 10 years ago—the historic cost has no reflection on the current market value, either with or without the defects—but at a current sitting tenant value.
I put to my hon. Friend the case of tenants who would otherwise wish to buy their Airey house, such as the Wellums and the Wards. They have complied with the conditions laid down by the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act that they should have occupied their house for a minimum of three years—the House will recall that if they have been in occupation for 20 years, council tenants are entitled to a 50 per cent. discount. In order to preserve their rights those tenants should be able to translate their right to buy to another permanently built property in the council's housing stock.
I invite my hon. Friend to agree that the Government have some responsibility—I do not know whether it would

be the Department of the Environment or the Treasury—because the erection of those houses was by Government initiative. A scheme should be devised whereby the compensation that is paid to tenants who have already exercised their right to buy, such as the Abdellas in the Lichfield district council area, should not be a burden on individual local authorities' housing revenue accounts.
The problem that I have illustrated to the House raises the basic question whether local authorities should sell houses which were built specifically to fulfil a short-term need and which, in the view of many, were likely to have only a limited life. There should be a departmental inquiry into the progressive deterioration of all public buildings and particularly, because it affects the lives of the families who live in them, houses built by means of industrialised and semi-industrialised building systems under successive Governments.
At Question Time on Wednesday my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, in answer to question 1 on the Order Paper, said that there was a reservoir of sympathy in the Department for the plight of people such as Mr. and Mrs. Abdella, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, Mr. and Mrs. Ward and Mr. and Mrs. Wellum. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say that the Department is prepared to translate that sympathy into action.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), who is my neighbour, in asking the Government to give particular attention to the alarming and unexpected contingency that has arisen.
The East Staffordshire district council, which is the council that covers the whole Burton division, has more Airey houses than any other local authority in the West Midlands area—221 houses are owned by it and 31 have been sold. The residents are naturally extremely worried. The East Staffordshire district council is also worried, because it is either about to or has just decided to repurchase all the houses sold under the right-to-buy legislation. My hon. Friend complimented the Lichfield council. I pay my respects to the sympathetic and extremely helpful attitude of the East Staffordshire district council. The council is worried that it will be left with an additional £1 million a year bill over a five-year period in order to repurchase those houses and repair the existing Airey houses owned by it. The HIP allocation will take some account of that need, but unless extra help is given there will be an inevitable distortion of the remaining current housing programme in the East Staffordshire district council area.
I do not wish to take up any more time, because there is urgent business to follow. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth in his plea to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government should consider that it may not be adequate just to take into account for the next year the costing in the HIP programme. Something extra special should be given to relieve local authorities such as mine and that of my hon. Friend, which are facing a need that is causing such deep concern to the residents in our areas.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I shall respond to the debate on this extremely important, not to say grievous, matter, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has introduced. I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the possible effects on HIP allocations for local authorities.
I preface my remarks by making two apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth. The first is that this is not my normal area of activity. Therefore, I am not able to give the response that might have been given if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is so well versed in the problem, had been here this morning.
The second is that, as my hon. Friend knows from the question answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on Wednesday, the matter that he has raised is causing much heartsearching. Therefore, it is not possible to provide the answers to the specific questions that have been raised, because the ramifications of the problems have still to be fully examined.
However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are involved in discussion and correspondence with the Association of District Councils on the matter. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the problem is likely to affect most housing authorities. In my constituency of Pudsey there are a number of Airey houses. The city of Leeds is one of the authorities with a large number of Airey houses, because, as my hon. Friend said, the Airey system originated in that part of the world.
My hon. Friend also referred to the consideration of transfer of the right to buy. That will certainly be considered, but it is an extremely complex proposal. Nevertheless, I take note of my hon. Friend's advocacy of it and will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction considers it.
There has undoubtedly been considerable anxiety about the discovery of defects in Airey houses. It is especially hard on those, some of them elderly, who have lived in a house for many years and have come to regard it with considerable affection as their home. It is hard, too, for those who have recently bought their homes and have spent a great deal of time and effort improving and modernising them and tailoring them to the needs of their families.
My hon. Friend referred to tenants involved in right-to-buy procedures, who are also now involved in the complexities arising from the problem. They are having to wait while local authorities take care in arriving at decisions on the future of the Airey houses concerned, whether the tenants have applied for the right to buy or are considering doing so. These highly complex problems require expert technical analysis and I fear that I have no other solace but to tell my hon. Friend that tenants will have to bear with local authorities while the inspection of houses and analysis of the findings is under way.
My hon. Friend raised the question of those in the process of considering the right to buy an Airey house in relation to surveys. Provided that the survey is thorough and the offer price reflects the results of the survey, that would still seem to be a sensible route to take.
I shall recount the action taken by the Government on the problem so far. As my hon. Friend recalled, Airey

houses were built as part of the immediate post-war prefabricated housing programme. My hon. Friend quoted a circular of the day which stated that it was not intended that the houses should be regarded merely as temporary structures. The then Government and other bodies expected that they would last a great deal longer than they have done and it was hoped that they would provide permanent homes equal in standard and quality to traditional homes.
About 18 months ago, however, a local authority found that the structural posts in an Airey house were cracked and alerted the Department. The Building Research Establishment was immediately commissioned to investigate the problem and to prepare a report. The investigation established that the cracking of the post was due to corrosion of the steel reinforcing tube and that as Airey houses were of standard construction there was a possibility that the fault might be common to all such houses. It also concluded that the effect might be to reduce the life of the structure, and might affect its structural integrity, with a possible risk to safety in extreme circumstances. In this context, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment that it is the exceptional circumstances that could cause exceptional problems.
In view of the potential risk to safety, the Department immediately wrote to all local authorities on 14 May last year notifying them of the findings of the BRE investigation and advising them to initiate a programme of inspection of their stock of Airey houses. In that letter we also asked local authorities to inform any owners of Airey houses in their areas that similar houses had been found to have defects and to recommend that they consider obtaining independent expert advice. They were also asked to advise anyone who might be in the process of purchasing an Airey house or who might wish to do so in the future of the possible existence of structural defects in such houses.
Advice was therefore passed to local authorities, upon which action was no doubt taken, to warn all those who were living in or considering the purchase of an Airey house, or who might be involved in such purchase, of the problem that had been identified. To aid the authorities' own experts in their investigations, a note was prepared by the BRE setting out in detail the nature of the problem and appropriate methods of inspection. This was circulated with the letter in May last year.
To assist the Department in building up a national picture, authorities were asked to submit to the BRE by July last year the survey results on the first two dwellings that they inspected, and to submit the results of the inspection of the remainder of their stock when the investigations were completed.
Having analysed the returns received, the BRE held seminars in November last year at which its findings were presented to representatives of local authorities and other owners. Information so far received shows that a considerable percentage of Airey houses have at least incipient structural faults. In a few cases, deterioration is so advanced and the cost of repair so great that councils have decided to demolish them. Others have concluded that houses are likely to remain serviceable for many years. There are signs that deterioration is more common in certain parts of the country. As a result of its inspections to date a local authority may well have some idea of the likelihood of defects in a given house even if it has not yet inspected it, but this will be no more than a general


indication. Only a structural survey in which the condition of the posts within the cavities is examined can reveal the exact condition of each house.
As a result of the surveys and seminars the BRE was asked to prepare further technical information and guidance on inspection procedures, on the assessment of conditions and safety and on possible courses of action for use both by local authorities and by private owners. Copies of this guidance note were sent to local authorities on 13 May this year, with the request that they forward copies to all owners of Airey houses in their areas. The advice issued by the BRE will help local authorities and owners to discover whether a particular Airey house is defective and whether repair or, in extreme cases, rebuilding, is required.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise, therefore, that, in addition to the sympathy which he noted had been expressed by the Department, fairly massive action has been taken to obtain advice on the scale of the problem. Local authorities can now act on that advice in the survey of their own stock. This, one hopes, will allow an assessment to be made of those houses that are at risk. Indeed, some local authorities have already completed their investigations.
In determining the housing investment programme allocations for 1982–83, the Department's regional offices have taken into account, where appropriate, the incidence of the need for work on Airey houses in the same way as any other special local need. In this context, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will note, in relation to the problems of East Staffordshire council, that this will come into the calculation for HIP purposes. The provisions of the Housing Act 1980 make capitalised repairs reckonable for subsidy. The effect is that 75 per cent. of the cost of repairs and, of course, redevelopment may be reckonable in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth will, I am sure, appreciate that the issues that he has raised are complex. I know that he understands that it will take a considerable time to arrive at further decisions on this complex problem. I hope, however, that he will recognise that, at least initially, action has been taken.
I share my hon. Friend's view that the manner in which Lichfield district council is dealing with the matter shows its sympathy and desire to assist. My hon. Friend

suggested that the council might be seeking to purchase back under certain conditions. I should not stand in its way if it wishes to do so, but the council will, I hope, recognise, as I am sure it does, the propriety of paying more than the market value of these houses.
The problem facing owners such as Mr. and Mrs. Abdella and my hon. Friend's other constituents will clearly continue to give rise for concern. My understanding is that Mr. and Mrs. Abdella did not purchase under the right-to-buy procedure, as they purchased in 1972. However, what might happen as a result obviously affects them as individuals and also affects my hon. Friend personally in so far as he seeks to provide the best advice to his constituents.
I cannot add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in reply to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on Wednesday about the consequences of these actions. I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is not possible for us to provide here and now further advice on what steps should be taken, or to make any comment on his plea that there should be Government assistance in dealing with local authority liabilities.
Meanwhile, local authority tenants who wish to buy are entitled to exercise their rights if they fulfil the relevant conditions of the Housing Act 1980. Known or potential defects would be a matter to be taken into account. Hence, it is important that the price ensuing from the survey reflects what the survey has to say.
We would strongly advise any tenant who wishes to proceed with the purchase of an Airey house to obtain expert independent advice on its structural condition, particularly where the local authority has not yet itself carried out a full structural survey and made the results available. A thorough survey is, unfortunately, likely to be both disruptive and costly. The upshot could be that the tenant eventually decides not to proceed. It would, however, be better to have that information to hand than to proceed unadvisedly to take a decision that might ultimately be regretted.
My hon. Friend has rightly raised an issue of major concern. That concern is shared by many hon. Members, as evidenced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. Many hon. Members wish to see the matter dealt with in an appropriate, thorough and fair fashion. The Government are at present conducting a thorough appraisal. We hope that it will lead to further guidance being given in due course.

Orders of the Day — Rail Disputes

Mr. Tim Eggar: I am sure that all hon. Members present are grateful to Mr. Speaker for agreeing to this brief second Adjournment debate to discuss the crisis in British Rail. There is general agreement, I think, that we should seek to keep the debate as brief as possible in view of the wish of staff to try to get home, faced, as they are, by travelling difficulties. As many hon. Members have stated, this is the most serious transport crisis in London since the General Strike. It is the first time that both the underground and rail services are likely to be out of operation at the same time.
One of the most noticeable things about the ASLEF strike that took place earlier in the year was the determination shown by commuters throughout London to get to work and to support the British Railways Board's decision to introduce flexible rostering. Seen from my perspective, there was considerable anger among commuters when the board decided not to continue to insist on flexible rostering. Many of my commuter constituents could not see what advantage had been gained from the board's stance during that industrial action.
I think that I am right in saying that commuters throughout London will be determined that once the strike starts, it should not finish until the board has won what it requires—the unions keeping to productivity agreements made in the past. Commuters throughout London have seen a deterioration in the services offered to them over the past few years. They recognise that unless there are changes in manning levels, in productivity agreements and in the attitude of the unions, there is no hope whatever of an improvement in services. Indeed, further deterioration is inevitable.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have the support of all Hertfordshire Members—I see my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) in their places—in the fair comments that he makes. My hon. Friend will, I think, agree that there is great resentment among commuters, especially in my constituency, who have had to contend with the problems of electrification and fare increases and will now, it appears, have the service denied to them by the unrepresentative action of the union leadership. To have the problems of suspension of the underground heaped upon them will create havoc for people trying to earn their living.

Mr. Eggar: I recognise that the concerns that I express relate not only to my constituents but to constituents represented by neighbouring hon. Members. I have many similar problems to my hon. Friend as the Hertford North to Moorgate line runs through my constituency.
In view of the wish of everyone to keep the debate as brief as possible, I do not intend to go into the background and reasons for the British Rail strike, except to say that I am certain that commuters will wish the board to stand by its determination to ensure that productivity agreements are honoured. I believe, however, that all commuters will be concerned and worried and that they will have contempt for the union's decision and action in relation to the underground strike. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are fully aware that London Transport made an

offer to withdraw the timetabling changes, that this offer was accepted by ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and that they agreed to return to work—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the offer to withdraw the service cuts was an offer not to withdraw them permanently but to withdraw them subject to certain conditions? They were to be withdrawn for a month while discussions took place. That is why the offer was unacceptable to the NUR.

Mr. Eggar: I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It was a temporary withdrawal for discussions. I am sure that all hon. Members would welcome a further chance for the unions and management to get together to discuss the future of the underground timetabling. There is nothing between hon. Members on that.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) knows that ASLEF and the TSSA went along with that offer, but, of course, the NUR did not. We are entitled, on behalf of our constituents, to ask what was the motivation of the NUR in relation to the underground strike. After all, it is a traditionally moderate union. One would have expected it to take exactly the same line as ASLEF and the TSSA. It did not do that. It sought, as I am sure the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South knows, to change the argument from timetabling to pay. By doing so and declaring an all-out strike, it broke the procedural agreements which require three weeks' notification of industrial action. I am sure that some of my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members will come to the conclusion that certain members of the NUR executive, for reasons best known to themselves, want a strike on the London underground at the same time as the strike on British Rail.
A further matter, which I do not imagine will have surprised Londoners, is the position taken by Mr. Ken Livingstone and the Labour GLC. We all know the background of the "Fares Fair" scheme. We also know that, in February, the Labour GLC set the London Transport management certain objectives relating to the service offered and the subsidy available. A direct consequence of the targets set by the GLC was that if, as expected, demand fell on the London underground, there would have to be marginal reductions in train frequencies—in this case, little more than a 30-second increase in waiting times for trains, and only then at peak hours. It was surprising that the Labour GLC, having set those targets for London Transport, then overtly and determinedly advised the London Transport unions to go on strike. At least part of the responsibility for what will happen on the underground must lie directly with the political motivation of the Labour GLC. I am sure that Londoners will draw their own conclusions from that. They will note that the body that represents them has deliberately increased inconvenience for commuters on the underground.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problems facing the travelling public in London arise directly from the overturning of the "Fares Fair" policy of the GLC, which has now crippled transport in London, as predicted?

Mr. Eggar: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) and I recognise the part that he plays on behalf of his constituents and the gloss that he has chosen to put on the dispute. However, I must tell him that the subsidy enjoyed by London Transport this year is similar in real terms to the subsidy that it enjoyed last year and the year before that. Therefore, he cannot blame what is happening now on any decision of the Law Lords or the reversal of the "Fares Fair" policy.
One thing that will unite all London commuters is a total determination to see that they will not be prevented from getting to work by the actions of a small group of individuals whose primary motivation they will realise is political. They will recognise that they cannot expect this Government or any other Government to consider putting additional—and, I admit, necessary—investment into London Transport and suburban British Rail lines unless they can be assured by the unions of co-operation in working practices and productivity agreements.

Mr. Michael English: This is the first time that I have spoken in a debate that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have chaired. As the senior Labour one of the unpaid members of the Chairman's Panel, I congratulate you on your new office. I remember when you assisted me greatly in the long hours of the night on, of all subjects, a Transport Bill. Your assistance was much appreciated by me.
This debate is not likely to take as long as that debate—at least, I hope not—but it seems to be falling into the danger of becoming entirely a London commuter representatives' debate. I understand why hon. Members from constituencies in and around London are here. Their seats are nearby, and, of course, hon. Members representing other constituencies have more difficulty getting here at present.
One of the problems that we are supposed to be debating is productivity, and we shall never have productivity on the railways if we have bad management. I want to give two illustrations. The first is the board's problem, and the other is much closer to ministerial level.
Let me describe what happens in the East Midlands. We used to have three inter-city rail services. There was a Central line which ran from London to Manchester through Nottingham and the East Midlands. That is now closed, in spite of running through a very densely populated part of the country. There was and still is a Midland line, as it is called. There was and still is the East Coast line. It is the last that is always accorded the first priority of the two by British Rail.
If a transport system is to be efficient, one should run it through the most densely populated places. The route that should go north from London is rather like the route of the M1 motorway. We do not duplicate the motorway. Instead, we have two railway services—one is the most densely populated per mile of any railway line in the country, and that is the Midland line, which runs through Nottingham, and Leicester; and the other is the East Coast line, which runs through the two least densely populated counties in the country, Lincolnshire and Northumberland, as well as generally running through much smaller places. It probably pleases the Prime Minister, because Grantham, for example, or Newark, which are tiny market towns, have a far better service than

the great cities of Nottingham and Leicester. Hon. Members who have tried to make speeches there will know exactly what I am talking about.
The line to Bedford on the Midland line is being electrified. Obviously, that electrification should be carried on to Nottingham. British Rail already has high speed trains on the East Coast line, and now the Midland line is to be allowed to have high speed trains secondhand and not be electrified. So British Rail in its plan, which I am glad to say that the Government have not yet accepted, wants to electrify the line that runs from London to Edinburgh through rural counties. It is absolute nonsense, and it is a waste of money to do it in that way. Years ago, someone should have worked out how to improve the Midland line, which runs through the great centres of population, and perhaps link it up in South Yorkshire or somewhere like that, with the present East Coast line, and carry it on to Edinburgh. All that British Rail thinks about is competition with the plane service to Edinburgh.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: While I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because the town of Burton-upon-Trent is somewhat afflicted by the restrictions of which he is talking, does he not agree that there are two more important priorities for the moment? First, the railway strike should be stopped. Secondly, the people of Britain should be entitled to say that if they are paying £2·4 million a day to subsidise the railway service, they ought to have a far better one than they are getting.

Mr. English: I agree that the British people are entitled to a far better service than they are getting. I am coming to subsidies, which do concern the Government. However, I was dealing first with the question whether British Rail should manage its enterprise in such a way as to yield as much revenue as it could or whether it should increase its capital expenditure on the least densely used line and reduce it on the better used lines, although that is not what the average business man would normally do. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he considers the capital costs.
The rail service must be subsidised to some extent. That extent is fairly clearly given away by the extent to which roads are subsidised. The capital cost of our road network is paid for basically by the taxpayer. The vehicles upon it are paid for by the road users but the capital cost is paid by the taxpayer. If somebody is not using his car but travels on the train, that reduces congestion on the roads. Something similar would be appropriate in the case of the railways.
There can be no justification at all for the Minister saying, as he did today, that he agreed with his predecessor's policy that inter-city lines should break even but that commuter lines should be subsidised. I am not trying to get rid of the commuter subsidy, but I do not see why there should be that injustice.
Londoners are feather-bedded. A typist in the Civil Service receives a higher rate of pay in London than she would outside it. The Government deliberately increase their civil servants' rates of pay if they live in London. In addition, London commuters are getting a relatively high subsidy compared to those on the inter-city service.
A person who lives in Nottingham and travels down to London receives a much lower rate of subsidy—ideally he


is not getting any subsidy—than a person who lives in the leafy suburbs outside London and travels in daily on the train. It is wildly unjust. It is intolerable that people in the rest of Britain should be subsidising the South-East. It is one thing to subsidise a poor region such as Northern Ireland, the North-East or the North-West, but to subsidise the South-East, which is the most prosperous region of Britain, is a total injustice that is not to be borne by the majority of people in Britain.
The Minister made one snide remark about Mr. Livingstone. However, I was surprised to hear that he basically agreed with him. Ken Livingstone is elected to run London and naturally believes in subsidising London commuters. It was one of life's great mysteries to me that the GLC proposals would have been more beneficial to those living in Conservative suburbs than in Labour central London seats. However, that was the case until Lord Denning decided to change it.
The Minister is now making placatory noises, saying that next year he is prepared to legislate if necessary to put the whole matter right. Conservative Members seem to have misunderstood him. He was saying—I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding his head—that he agreed with Ken Livingstone that the commuters should be subsidised. I find it extraordinary that a Government who are supposed to believe in market forces and free market economics have this attitude towards subsidising the people who happen to live in the capital. That is not free market economics, nor market pricing. It is Ken Livingstone's policy that the Minister is taking over. That must be laid at the Government's door.
The Government have a clear responsibility for improving the management of British Rail. When I worked for a great multinational company with worldwide interests I was always taught that strikes are almost invariably the consequence—not necessarily the immediate consequence—of bad management. It takes two people to make a strike. Bad management creates the industrial climate that causes such events. I still believe that to this day.
I live in part in the East Midlands and it is obvious to me that there is bad management. It saddens me to see it, since my father was the commercial manager of one of the old railway companies. It is a matter of great regret to me that there should be bad management in various parts of British Rail's managerial structure. The Government should sort that out. If they did so and if they dealt with the proper capital subsidies—and not the unnecessary ones—they would achieve much better industrial relations as a by-product.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I wish to speak briefly and I shall not follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in his prolonged travels round the countryside. However, at the end of his speech he implied that there should be direct Government involvement in the management and affairs of British Rail. If that is Labour Party policy, that is one rather interesting contribution to the debate.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament five years ago I have tried to pursue, on behalf of my constituents, the electrification of the line from Kings Cross to Cambridge. That is now at risk because of the prospective strike. Cambridge is not a commuter city, but its people, industry

and tourism are heavily dependent upon good communications. They are also now at risk. However, I also represent railwaymen and their wives and families. Their future, their jobs and their industry are most at risk. Therefore, on their behalf as well I condemn the insane and completely unjustifiable strike that is proposed. All are now at risk. Even at this late hour, I hope that those in the unions who intend to lead the strike will accept some responsibility, not only for the railwaymen of the present, but for the industry of the future.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Conservative Members allege that there is something political about the strike—[Interruption.] I deny that. Those who have eyes to see what has happened to the railway industry in the past few years will know that two or three years ago—even under this Government—morale was reasonably high among ordinary rank and file railwaymen.

Mr. Eggar: I do not claim that the rail strike is primarily politically motivated, although political motivations had a considerable part to play in the decision to bring the NUR out on the underground. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to join me in condemning the way in which normal procedural agreements have been broken by the NUR.

Mr. Anderson: I do not know to whose politics the hon. Gentleman is referring, but he should consider the background to the railway industry during the past three years. He should understand why traditionally moderate railwaymen have been pushed over the edge by a Government whom they perceive to be hostile to their industry's interests. After a bleak period following the Beeching cuts, the industry seemed to have a limited future. However, two or three years ago certain developments on the horizon led railwaymen to believe that they were in an industry of the future. I think particularly of the electrification scheme, the Channel tunnel and increased investment in rolling stock.
All those components, which together gave railwaymen the impression that the industry had a future, have been undermined in different ways by the Government's policies. Because of their hostility to the railway industry, the Government have been seen to have the unique gift—in this industry, as in others—of turning moderates into militants during the past three years. It appears that the Prime Minister, fresh from her victory, as she sees it, in the Falklands, is standing on the sidelines in this dispute, seeking an unconditional surrender of our railwaymen in a similar way. That they will not accept.
The investment for which railwaymen had hoped has not occurred. Over the years journey times have been reduced, but, in the new timetables, because of the lack of investment, some journey times have been increased. The Euston to Carlisle route is an example. Even on a major line such as that between London and Birmingham, speed restrictions have been applied because of the lack of investment.
The process has been cumulative in the last few years. Because of the energy benefits involved, investment should occur in the industry, but it does not. British Rail set out in a recent report what it hoped to achieve by investment over a 10-year period, but the investment allowed is less than 50 per cent. of that required.
Railwaymen recognise that, compared with similar European countries, Britain's railway system is starved of subsidy. That is the context in which the ordinary rank and file railwayman regards the position. He believes that he is in a corner in a hostile environment.
The spark that set off the dispute was the provocative pay offer.

Mr. Keith Best: I should like to take the hon. Gentleman up on his thesis that this Government turn moderates into miltitants. Would he say that that applied to the decision by the National Union of Mineworkers, on a ballot, not to follow its executive in a disastrous strike?

Mr. Anderson: I should be delighted to take the hon. Gentleman through each industry and examine the thesis that this Government turn moderates into militants. I should like to examine with him the mining industry, the hospitals and the steel industry to test the validity of my thesis. I am confident that such an examination would prove that I am right, but if I did that I should rapidly be put back on the tracks.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to one or two other issues? If the rail strike goes ahead, all the letters to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre will be carried, not by the railways, but in other ways, because the Post Office is dying to get away from the railways. The business will not be returned to the system.
Many people working on the railways will become deeper and deeper in debt because they will not be receiving income from work. Many other working people will have to work longer hours and spend longer travelling. Their jobs will be put at risk because the prosperity of their employers will be harmed as much as the railways. All of that will be caused, in part, not by the pay issue but by the fight within the NUR executive and the fight between the NUR and ASLEF.

Mr. Anderson: I accept that there will be enormous disadvantages for the travelling public and enormous dangers for the future of the railways if the strike goes ahead. That is why anybody who is concerned about the future of the railways must be desperately worried about the consequences, not only for the travelling public but for the Post Office and the future of rural lines. Indeed, some of us feel that not only the Prime Minister and her principal advisers, but others in the Government, would not be unhappy to seize upon the strike to justify policies which they would like to carry out in any event in respect of rural lines and other matters.
Provocative actions have been taken recently. The pay offer was certainly provocative. Other public sector workers were given 5 or 6 per cent., but the offer to the railwaymen of 5 per cent. from July was actually worth only marginally over 3 per cent., because their pay year runs from April to April. That was one of the sparks that set off the dispute.
The chairman of the board, whom I have supported until now, sent a bungling and ill-judged letter to individual members of the NUR, seeking to go over the head of the union. I was brought up under an NUR poster proudly stating "Unity is Strength" and anyone who has had contact with the union will understand, as the right

hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was forced to learn when he was Prime Minister, the enormous solidarity in the union and loyalty to it.
Whatever hesitations individual members of the union may have about the rightness of the strike and the ultimate dangers, there will be an enormous reservoir of loyalty to the union. The board's letter was ill-judged.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman read out the letter? It seems to be relevant to the debate.

Mr. Anderson: Like other hon. Members, I was caught wrong-footed by the debate and I do not have the letter with me. It seems that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has a copy. The letter may have been sent to Conservative Members, which would be significant. It appears not to have been sent to Labour Members.
The substance of the letter has appeared in newspapers. The board said in effect, to NUR members "If you ignore your union and go to work on Monday we will look after you and seek to end the closed shop in the industry." The closed shop has been of major benefit to the industry over the years. That letter was a thoroughly ill-timed intervention by the board at the eleventh hour, when the issues were very sensitive. The letter seemed designed to put up the backs of rank and file railwaymen and to force reason to fly out of the window.
Sir Peter Parker is normally sure-footed in such matters, and I am sure that he will live to regret that ill-considered and ill-timed intervention.
There are elements of Greek tragedy in this saga, as well as a certain inevitability. The industry may emerge much thinner after what could be a prolonged dispute. Everyone who has the future of the industry at heart must be desperately worried.
The railways should be an industry for the future. Even at this late stage, the Government should accept their responsibility, because the crisis in the industry is due to the imposition of cash limits, the relative lack of investment, and so on. The Government should realise the substantial compliance that there has been with productivity arrangements, certainly by the NUR, often on very sensitive issues. They should no longer stand on the sidelines. They should abandon the posture of the folded arms, which simply allows the tragedy to evolve. They should realise that there has to be some Government intervention if the industry is to develop in a positive way.
I hope that even now, at this eleventh hour, the Government will see sense. I hope that, before the annual delegate conference of the NUR opens at Plymouth on Monday, they will give a sufficient concession for the union to be able to call off a strike that will be thoroughly damaging to everyone, not only in the industry, but in the country as a whole.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Like the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I am concerned about the future of the railways and, in particular, of those who work on the railways.
I struggled to get here today. Several ticket collectors and train drivers spoke to me about the strike. They said "How can we possibly avoid it? We do not want it. We have not organised it. We do not want to take this strike action." Likewise, the commuters desperately do not want the strike. I heard them talking about the trade unions dragging this country to ruin.
The strike will not serve the unions' cause well. It will certainly not serve the interests of the commuters in my constituency, because it will make it extremely difficult for them to get to work. They will become very angry with the leaders of the unions, but not with the members of the unions. That is an important point that union leaders should weigh carefully before going ahead with this ill-considered strike.
The unions have not given adequate time for negotiations to take place. The 5 per cent. offer was made in May. We are now at the end of June. Proper negotiations, in difficult circumstances, would take far longer than that. As I understand the situation concerning the underground, the unions have not even begun to negotiate properly.
Clearly, the leaders of the rail unions have in mind things other than the good working conditions of the men concerned. There is no doubt that there is political motivation. I believe that commuters will react in anger against any attempt to use the strike as a means of taking political action against a democratically elected Government.
I beg the union leaders to call off the strike, to allow negotiations to take place, and to permit the modernisation of the railways that the railwaymen and the commuters so earnestly seek.
It is disgraceful that the £150 million expenditure on the Bedford to St. Pancras line is being wasted because of the continuing argument about the single manning of the trains and the absurd restrictive practices imposed by the NUR. The railway community does not want obstructive action. It wants to create an efficient system.
Commuters are proud of the modernisation that has taken place on the lines between Hertford and Moorgate and Stevenage and King's Cross, but they get very annoyed when the services on those lines are interrupted. Recently a new station was opened in my area. That shows how much people in my constituency—especially commuters—value the railway service. There was great rejoicing when the station was opened. It shows the pride that we take in the railways.
I beg the union leaders not to ruin their members' future. I beg them not to destroy the market and the good will of those who use the railways.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: The threatened rail strike is only one of many strikes which have been discussed in the House since this Government were elected, and it has some relevance to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the day following her election. In Conservative News, the headline was "My Troops are Ready."
There has been a constant battle between the Government and the trade union movement. We have seen consistent attacks upon the trade union movement in various industries and strikes have occurred particularly in the public sector in the very industries for which this Government are responsible as the employer. The Government have provoked disputes with the recalcitrant attitude that they have taken towards the wages and conditions of the people they employ.

Mr. Best: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that his argument is supported by the strike record of the past 12

months, which shows that there have been fewer days lost in the past year than in any year since 1947? Does that support what he has just said?

Mr. Roberts: I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the same period, although some 14 million working days were lost as a result of strike action, nearly 4 million yews of production have been lost as a result of the unemployment caused by this Government. That is the real relationship. That unemployment is the result of the policies being pursued by the Government.
If the threatened rail strike is not settled satisfactorily in the interests of the people in the industry, it will lead to more sackings and to a greater increase in unemployment. All the talk about so-called productivity agreements always ends in more unemployment for the workers involved.
The strikers in the rail industry and their families, as well as their fellow workers, are suffering as a result of this dispute. They do not want strikes. They do not want the present dispute to continue. They want it to end satisfactorily with their jobs and their standards of living protected. They want modernisation and electrification to go ahead, but they also want what in my view we should insist upon—better management of our railway services.
I have already commented in the form of a question earlier that the problems of London's commuters arise mainly from the "Fares Fair" policy of the GLC, which was undermined and removed by the present Government and their allies, the Law Lords.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has just made a very serious accusation. He has accused the Law Lords of being politically motivated. Perhaps he would care, on reflection, to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Roberts: Unfortunately, Law Lords have voles. They have political opinions and they express those opinions in a variety of ways. Very rarely do they support the Labour cause and the point of view of trade unionists.
Government supporters ask where the money is to come from. There is no shortage of money. We spend £14,000 million on Trident. We spend £600 million on the EEC. There is plenty of money.
The Government are the biggest employer of labour in the country. The problems is that the Government are not using the nation's finances in the interests of the living standards of the people. If they were they would set about resolving our transport problems, and by that I do not mean trying to resolve them by increasing the sweated conditions of those who have to work in the railways industry.

Mr. Keith Best: I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) that the House does not wish the strike to proceed. However, thereafter, I fear that he and I live in different worlds. He seems to be saying that the Government have no interest in the future of the railways. He flies in the face of reality, because he should know,, as an hon. Member who follows such matters, that the Government are spending more on the railway system in real terms than any previous Government spent. That is the Government's commitment to what he wishes and I hope that he will support the Government now that he realises it.
We are facing a national domestic crisis which does not extend only to hon. Members representing London constituencies. That is why I am glad that I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I represent a rural constituency. Many of my constituents live in the railway town of Holyhead and work for British Rail. They do not wish the strike, nor do they wish the executive to call the strike for the reasons that it has. I pay tribute to British Rail's employees. Before battle is joined between management and work force, with the unfortunate commuter or traveller caught in the cross-fire, both sides must draw back from the brink so that bloodshed, in terms of the destruction of our railway system, can be avoided.
Before hon. Members become too entrenched on either side of what could be a damaging dispute, tribute should be paid to what has been achieved so far. I received a document from the NUR, entitled "The Future of the Railway Industry", which sets out five ways in which advances have been made: the rationalisation of freight marshalling yards, the withdrawal of C and D parcels, a reduction in passenger train mileage and facilities of about 10 per cent. by October this year, the acceleration of administrative streamlining and co-operation in good housekeeping, with the work force being matched to changing demands in the rail industry. It is right to pay tribute to that work, because it makes the present dispute even more sad.
The fundamental point is that the work force does not wish the strike to take place and is out of sympathy with those who have called it.

Mr. Peter Snape: That is a familiar refrain.

Mr. Best: I hope that if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will advocate a ballot of the NUR membership to see whether it supports the executive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the National Union of Mineworkers is an extremely responsible union. However, sometimes the membership and the executive do not have the same views. I wish to see that tested with the NUR.

Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the only ballot in which railwaymen participated under the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act 1972, when more than 80 per cent. of NUR members voted in favour of further industrial action? An enforced ballot becomes a straight choice for the average trade unionist—about whom the hon. Gentleman knows little—between the union to which he pays his dues and the Government, invariably Conservative, who have mucked up industrial relations.

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman supports my case for a ballot. If he is so confident that a ballot of the NUR membership will support the executive, let him have the courage to advocate it. I look forward to his stating that in a moment. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not advocate such a ballot, because he knows in his heart that the membership would not support the executive.
The newspapers are full of examples of investigative journalism—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) chooses to mock the press. I think that he does it a disservice. It is

full of examples today of comments from ordinary members of British Rail's work force who do not want to go on strike.
I read with particular care an article in The Guardian. I suspect that Labour Members will agree that it is a fairly disinterested newspaper politically. The article in The Guardian states that at the carriage works at York NUR members are so concerned about their jobs that they have already voted overwhelmingly against stopping work next week. The same article says that it is hard to find a rail worker in York who is in favour of a strike. It seems that there was a feeling among those interviewed that Sir Peter Parker is being honest and firm when he says that no more money is available.
The same article refers to the work force at Crewe, which comes within the region of which Holyhead forms a part. That being so, I took particular cognisance of what was written about Crewe. The message was that petitions against a strike had been organised by NUR workers at Crewe. One petition from station staff bears 240 signatures. That is the voice of the ordinary NUR worker. He is saying that he does not agree with his executive having called the strike.
The tragedy is that the executive is drawing the membership unwillingly to the brink of disaster. If we have a prolonged strike, the railway system will be ruined. Even more disastrous than that, a long strike will give strength to those who do not wish to see the public funding of our transport system. It will enable them to say that it should not happen.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a vested interest in denying the opponents of public funding the chance to say that public money should not be spent on the railway system. I hope that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will rise to the occasion. With respect, he failed to do so earlier when questions were being addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The House has a right to expect the right hon. Gentleman to condemn the strike, not least because he knows as well as anyone else that there has been a breach of procedures.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman identify where and when a breach of procedures in the British Rail dispute took place and who was responsible?

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman knows that there have not been proper consultations on the issues on which the executive is claiming to call the strike. I hope that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness will say that he believes that the proper procedures should be followed. If he does not, he will be advocating a recipe for anarchy in industrial relations. That is something that I hope he will not do.

Mr. Albert Booth: I listened with great care and interest to the proper report that the hon. Gentleman gave of the considerable advances that have been made in productivity. I was concerned subsequently to hear what he had to say about the NUR executive. Does he accept that NUR executive members are elected by the membership and have a right to be regarded as representative of the membership, as the hon. Gentleman and I are representative of our constituents?
Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is saying about railway trade unionists is inconsistent with what the Secretary of State and some of his hon. Friends


said this morning about them being a lot of mindless militants? Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends?

Mr. Best: The right hon. Gentleman's first point was about the executive. Of course it represents its membership in general matters, just as the right hon. Gentleman and I represent our electorate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is proper, when a national rail strike is being called which could ruin the railway system, that the executive should be certain that it still represents its membership. The right hon. Gentleman will accept that if a motion of censure against the Government is carried it is right that there should be a general election so that the people of the country can reaffirm or deny their support for their elected representatives.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I was not aware that my right hon. Friend had said anything of the sort. Of course, there are militants everywhere—

Mr. Anderson: On the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Snape: Under the bed.

Mr. Best: There are militants everywhere who are mindless in many things that they do. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the tenor of my speech has been one of appreciation for the majority of the members of the NUR, who work hard at their jobs on the railways and who want to see the railways prosper, as is the wish of the whole House.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to the letter written by Sir Peter Parker. I have a copy of it and I do not think that it is provocative. It is a plea at the last moment to the membership of the NUR not to destroy the railway system. He says:
So, for your sake, the sake of your family and the future of the railway system, help me stop the strike before it starts.
That is not a particularly provocative statement. I do not regard as provocative the further sentence:
If the strike does go on, thousands of railway jobs, perhaps yours, will disappear for ever. That is a fact.
The House knows that that will be the fact if the strike goes on.
I believe that the executive does not have the support of the union membership, who know that jobs will disappear if the strike goes ahead. The members of the NUR will need courage to resist what could be the destruction of their livelihood. They will need courage to say that they will not go out on strike on Monday. If they say "No" overwhelmingly, as I am confident they will, they will have the backing of the House.

Mr. Peter Snape: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) as well as some of his hon. Friends. It is at times like this that the Tory Party's rank hypocrisy about trade union matters can be seen at its worst.
There have been expressions of concern about the future of the railway industry, the future of railwaymen and their families and jobs. Why have not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends expressed concern over the past three years, when the railway industry has been in a serious state of decline? The jobs about which Conservative Members shed many crocodile tears are

already under threat because of the state of the industry. It is an open secret that the British Railways Board would like to get rid of about 3,000 miles of track, principally in rural areas. It is an open secret that the board would prefer a much smaller industry, so let us have no nonsense from the Conservatives about the future of railways and railwaymen.
Despite what the hon. Member for Anglesey said about investment levels, under this Government the decline that had been taking place for some years has spiralled almost out of control. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were putting more investment into the industry than any previous Government and that the rate of investment in the last financial year was higher than it had ever been. To a certain extent that is true, but the assets of the board are declining far faster than investment is increasing. We are in the middle of a major problem with the replacement of railway assets installed under the 1955 modernisation plan—all of which, regrettably, are becoming due for renewal at about the same time. There are problems not only with rolling stock but with the signalling systems in many parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) referred earlier to the problems of commuters travelling between London and the East Midlands. Once one is clear of the outer London area, the Midland main line in the 1980s is signalled in exactly the same way as it was 100 years ago and in many cases from the same signal boxes. The fact that massive investment is needed sweep away these Victorian relics cannot be offset by the sham sorrow now being expressed by Conservative Members about the railway industry.
With regard to the current dispute, the hon. Member for Anglesey accused my union—the National Union of Railwaymen—of breaking agreements. Certainly, agreements have been broken—they have been broken by the British Railways Board. The settlement date for the 1982 wage negotiations was the end of April. We are now almost in July. The board's offer runs, with productivity strings, from September and is worth only about 3 per cent. to most railwaymen.
Conservatives, as always, have quoted the usual stuff that appears in the Fleet Street press about railwaymen not wishing to go on strike. I think that both sides are united on that. Nobody wants a railways strike. The railwaymen themselves are certainly well aware of the impact of such action and the way in which the decline of their industry would be hastened if such action proved necessary. The press simply asks one question and prints the answer. Clearly, if railwaymen are asked "Do you want to go on strike?" the answer will be "No", because nobody wants to go on strike. If the same question were put to workers at the supposedly strike-prone car factories in the Midlands, the answer would be "No, I do not want to go on strike." The next question, however, must be, "Are you happy with your present rate of pay?" The take-home pay of many railwaymen is £50 per week or less, and the answer will be, "No, I am not". Equally, to the question, "Are you happy with the increase offered by the board?" the average railwayman will reply "No, I am not", because he, too, has all his outgoings to pay and an increase of 3 per cent. over the full year is hardly likely to assist hire in that.

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman makes a good debating point, but it is syllogistic. If the answer to the question "Do


you wish to go on strike?" is "No", and the answer to the question "Are you satisfied with the present rate of pay?" is also "No", one cannot deduce from that that the NUR work force is in favour of this of this strike. The hon. Gentleman must see that that is nonsense. The question being asked is whether the work force wants to go on strike for the reasons expressed by the executive, and the answer to that is a resounding "No".

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap in which he accuses me of being firmly embedded. If the straight question "Do you wish to strike?" is put to railwaymen, the answer, of course, is "No". The same answer would be given in any wage round. The industry is full of loyal people many of whom have given their whole lifetime to it. It is rightly regarded as a family industry. Before coming here, I worked on the railways, as did my father. At no time would railwaymen, as a whole, say "Yes" to that sort of question.
This brings me back to the question whether the executive of the NUR properly represents the views of its members. I do not know whether Conservative Members are aware of the electoral procedures and the democratic nature of my union. Whether they like it or not, I intend to enlighten them. The elected executive of the National Union of Railwaymen, unlike that of any other union, so far as I am aware, is not allowed to stand for re-election. At the end of its three-year term of office, its members must return to their original jobs in the industry. I suggest that this makes them far more representative of the views of rank and file railwaymen than some other union leaders that one or two hon. Members could perhaps name. Because of the union's open and democratic procedures, executive members are allowed to serve one term after which they must spend at least three years back in their jobs in the industry before being allowed to stand again for election.
There is a further test to decide the desirability or necessity of this dispute. Under the rules of the National Union of Railwaymen, the executive, from Monday, has no responsibility for running the union. As from Monday and for the following three weeks, the responsibility for running the union falls entirely and exclusively on our annual general meeting. The 77 delegates to the annual general meeting of the National Union of Railwaymen are all working railwaymen. There is not a single full-time paid official among them. They are people such as branch secretaries and branch chairman who are, of course, union activists. I would have thought that the average age of the delegates—they will not thank me for saying so—is considerably in excess of 50. To talk of Moscow-dominated militants engaging in political action and hoping to bring down the Government would not strike many chords with them.
If there is the feeling, as illustrated by the Fleet Street press this morning, that the strike is not fair and just and that railwaymen do not want it, the annual general meeting will no doubt say so next week. I do not believe, however, that this is the case. I believe, regrettably, that many railwaymen feel they have been driven into a corner from which there is no escape. There has been a litany of broken

promises from the Government on investment and co-operation. In recent months, there has also been a deterioration in the relationship between the rail unions and the British Railways board.
There has been reference to the letter from Sir Peter Parker to every member of the staff. I can understand that Sir Peter, in his last term, he says, as chairman, would not want to leave behind an industry broken-backed and racked by industrial disputes. I fear that Sir Peter, in sending out this letter, shows a complete lack of understanding of the average railwayman and his likely reaction to the letter. One has also to consider his threat to tear up the closed shop agreement with the National Union of Railwaymen. To hear Conservative Members, one would imagine that the closed shop in industry is the most wicked inquisition since the original Spanish one.
However, according to the British Railways board itself, the closed shop within British Rail has been eminently beneficial. The board member for industrial relations, Cliff Rose, was the only speaker, so far as I am aware, at last year's CBI conference, to speak in favour of the closed shop and the benefits that it had brought to the industry. The National Union of Railwaymen, in particular, has been careful to work, along with the board, to prevent unofficial action that occasionally breaks out in various parts of the country. We had to warn members of our union that if they persisted in unofficial action while their negotiators were still involved in talks with the management, they could render themselves liable to expulsion from the union and thus lose their jobs. That is an aspect of the closed shop that has brought some benefit to the British Railways Board, but it is an aspect that we never hear mentioned in this House.
If Sir Peter believes that sending this letter and threatening to tear up the existing agreements is the way forward—incidentally, if such action were taken by the unions, Conservative Members would be on their feet, as they have today, attacking a major trade union for threatening to breach an agreement—the backlash will affect the management and its future prospects of re-establishing good relations with the trade unions far more than it will affect the unions themselves. The likely result of Sir Peter's letter is a hardening of resolve among many railwaymen and—regrettable though it is—at this eleventh hour the strike will go ahead. A strike is not in the interests of the people who work in the industry. Nor is it in the interests of the management of the industry. There is a growing feeling in Rail House among certain members of the British Railways Board that the time has come for a showdown with the railway unions.

Mr. Dobson: The Falklands factor.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) calls it the Falklands factor. There has long been a feeling on the part of the present occupant of Downing Street that if there is to be a punch-up, she wants to be in the middle of it. That, of course, is a matter for her. Those members of the British Railways Board who think that the time is now ripe to take on the unions are making a mistake. If the dispute takes place on Monday, it looks like being protracted and bitter. I am sure, therefore, that all right hon. and hon. Members hope that last-minute action will be taken to stave off the dispute and prevent the strike. In my opinion, the only action that could prevent a strike would be either an


increase in the somewhat derisory pay offer that has been made—obviously, it is the board's unstated view that it would be leaned on heavily by its paymasters at the Treasury if it made such an offer at present—or a commitment from the Government to go ahead with some of the schemes that have been lying on the desk of the Secretary of State, and his predecessor, without reply. Unless either of those desirable actions takes place, I see no way out of the impasse in which we now find ourselves.
If the strike goes ahead on Monday, and if it becomes a protracted affair, the decline of the railway system, which has taken place over the past decade, and which has accelerated over the past three years, will come about even faster. The problem for railwaymen and for the elected representatives of the railway trade unions is that they see that decline taking place anyway, regardless of the cooperation that they have offered over the years to the British Railways Board.
The hon. Member for Anglesey mentioned the co-operation extended by the National Union of Railwaymen in various productivity schemes. We estimate that the current savings from the schemes that he outlined are about £29 million over the full financial year. The same railwaymen who said "No" to a strike, made their views well known not only to me but to members of the NUM executive. They felt that the executive was giving away jobs year after year without getting anything in return. Of course, that is an over-simplification of the situation.
On productivity, we hear speaker after speaker on the Conservative Benches talking about the Bedford-St. Pancras line as though it were an earth-shattering dispute that merited the spotlight that has been turned on it. At the moment there are not enough train sets to operate a full service. There are only 30 units at the present time and it is not intended that the service should start until September in any case.
Not without some justification, the NUR believes that to have 400 to 500 people on one electric multiple unit in the rush hour—that is the figure that they were built for—with only one crewman, that being the driver, locked in the front cab, is not desirable.
The NUR has made various proposals for the re-employment of those presently employed as guards on the Bedford-St. Pancras line. The unions have not flatly refused to negotiate. There are proposals on the table for the board to consider. For some reason it is difficult to get a straight answer from the British Railways Board about what sort of modern railway it wants in the future and how it should be staffed. It is sometimes extremely difficult to persuade members of the British Railways Board of the operating realities of running a railway system. All of that does not show that there has been a complete rejection by the NUR of the operation of the units. We are anxious to see them in operation. There has been full co-operation on the modernisation and electrification of other lines in the London area. We want to see that electrification going forward in the future to cover other parts of Britain.
Reference was made earlier to The Guardian and its frequent leaders attacking railway productivity. The evidence is there. Since they were elected in 1979, the Government have held three separate inquiries into the financial aspects of British Rail, all three of which, including that of the Monopolies Commission, have given the industry a fairly clean bill of health. On any European

comparison of productivity British Rail comes out better than the railway systems of most other countries in Western Europe.

Mr. Dobson: With less subsidy.

Mr. Snape: The Guardian leader writer's obsession is repeated week after week. I have read at least four articles in a similar vein in that newspaper over the past four weeks. I must content myself with one reply. If the average railwayman had co-operated with modernisation and productivity at the same rate as the Fleet Street trade unions have, those electric multiple units to and from Bedford would have been preceded by a man carrying a red flag. Fleet Street newspapers are surely the last to lecture a nationalised industry about productivity.
Some way must be found out of the present crisis. I have tried to illustrate what, regrettably, I believe are the only two ways forward. If the Government are prepared to sit by and do nothing, the strike will take place. All will regret that. I do not subscribe to the "tea and buns at No. 10" view so far as every dispute is concerned. However, given the gravity of this dispute and its likely consequences, at the very least the Secretary of State should be directly involved in trying to bring both sides together and probably even the Prime Minister herself, although that might be against her natural character. A conciliatory approach to produce some constructive proposals to allow both sides to avoid this potentially disastrous dispute is necessary.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: This is one of those sad occasions when one begins to wonder whether party politics serve the interests of the British people.

Mr. Dobson: Stand as an independent then.

Mr. Stanbrook: All too often hon. Members speak from preconceived party positions on national issues, not on their merits. Those Labour Members who have been attacking the Government's policy on this issue have attacked it not because of its merits but because, like Pavlovian dogs, they must signal that they will support the unions concerned. They are leaping to the trade unions' side, although most reasonable people agree that those unions are acting irresponsibly.
The rail unions have a case, but it is not to be supported to the detriment of the interests of the British people. Reference has been made to the letter sent by the chairman of the British Railways Board. That letter, which was entirely reasonable, was addressed to every member of the staff. There have been plenty of precedents, and in this day and age it was perfectly proper to send that letter. It has been attacked as provocative, but, when bargaining, both sides are always provocative. That is normal, natural and democratic, and usually peaceful. However, great resentment has been expressed because it is believed that Sir Peter Parker attempted to go over the unions' heads. As the letter has been referred to, I shall quote it. Sir Peter Parker begins:
It is now one minute to midnight. Unless commonsense from ordinary railwaymen takes over, the railways are now due to start the most disastrous strike in their history.
Surely the best person to make judgments is entitled to do so. Sir Peter Parker continued:
Nobody regrets this head-on clash with responsible union leaders more than I do. But on this occasion they are wrong, and I am writing again to urge you to ask your union leadership to think again.


That is an eminently reasonable plea to make to those who will suffer. Hon. Members should make no mistake. The union leaders will not suffer. The ordinary rank and file members will suffer, and the strike will lead only to the industry's further decline.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Stanbrook: There is plenty of time for the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the debate. I should like to press on.
Sir Peter Parker's next words are no doubt the remarks that are most deeply resented by those Labour Members who speak not for the public interest, but for the unions. He says:
I want you to know these things: If there is a strike, there will be no pay increase. We will not withdraw our productivity conditions. I do not believe for a minute the Government will intervene to find the cash we haven't got.
I only hope that Sir Peter Parker is right and that the Government will not intervene. He continued:
If the strike does go on, thousands of railway jobs, perhaps yours, will disappear for ever. That is fact. Our business will be crippled. Passenger services will be cut back. I believe we could lose the contract for Post Office letter mail.
Hon. Members should contemplate that possibility. He continued:
Speedlink and Freightliner traffic will be lost. It will mean less rolling stock and, therefore, fewer maintenance jobs in Regions and in BR Engineering Ltd. With less business there will be a substantial reduction in white collar jobs.
Think about it—is it really worth the risk?
That has put the issue in plain language, but in words that one would expect from a responsible leader of one of our nationalised industries. He wrote:
If you decide not to strike, the board will not accept loss of trade union membership as a cause for dismissal.
Is that not a perfectly fair and proper thing to say? For too long, Britain has been held to ransom by the wretched concept of the closed shop. For goodness' sake let us get rid of it.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is in a closed shop.

Mr. Stanbrook: Let us adopt a more responsible attitude towards such issues. Sir Peter Parker concluded his letter with the following words:
We will continue to try to find common cause with your leaders—but I think it is going to be up to the commonsense and intervention of you and other workers this time if we are going to avoid disaster.
Please think very seriously before supporting a strike call. Make no mistake. If there is a strike you may well not have a job to come back to.
That is reality. Those are the facts. Those are the words of a responsible man who is entitled to speak in that way on behalf of the industry that he leads.
Opposition Members know that if similar circum-stances had occurred when they were in power, they would have encouraged the unions and the workers to accept a reasonable settlement—something like the 5 per cent. that is offered. Hon. Members can put their own interpretation on the figure, but I say that the offer is 5 per cent. It is subject to some productivity concessions and conditions which will show that the work force is prepared to co-operate in making the industry more efficient.
In such circumstances, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), on behalf of the

Government, would have said how reasonable it was for the work force to make such acceptable and reasonable gestures to increase productivity.
Many ways to secure efficiency and greater productivity have been suggested. The suggestions include the unmanned station, the one-man operation of trains on the newly electrified St. Pancras to Bedford line and driver-only freight trains. What about locomotive drivers driving between seven and nine hours a day instead of the rigid eight hours? Such desirable improvements could be made.
I have described some publicly known details of conditions which could be adopted and lead to greater productivity. Will the work force adopt them? No. The workers are caught in the straitjacket of trade unionism. They are supported in the House—and parliamentary democracy suffers as a result—by a bunch of Labour Party Members whose first instinct, whatever the issues, is to rally to the support of the trade union leadership. They do not necessarily rally to the cause of the workers who suffer. That is bad enough, but worse still is their attitude to the national interest.
About one-third of the electorate in my constituency travels to London every day by rail. More people travel from Orpington station to the City than from any other station, according to Sir Peter Parker. My interest is as great as that of any Labour Member who may or may not be sponsored by a railway union. At least I represent the interest which I am here to represent. I am here to represent not a trade union or business interest, but the people in my constituency. They are entitled to know that I shall raise my voice on their behalf rather than talk about sectional interests. Labour Members talk claptrap about the public interest when they are really talking about their own petty sectional interest in trade unions.

Mr. Snape: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that hon. Members who belong to railway trade unions are paid to express their views? Unlike some of his hon. Friends, we are not paid by anybody to express our views. Strange as it may seem to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, we express views because we happen to believe them.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is interesting, because I said not a word about pay. I do not suggest that the motivation of Opposition Members is pay. If it were, it would be reprehensible, and no doubt hon. Gentlemen would declare their interests. I hope that they are concerned about the public interest, or at least about the interests of all their constituents. Are they thinking of the distress and misery that is being caused and will increasingly be caused from Monday? About 20,000 of my constituents will face hardship and misery, but most will be determined to get to work and will employ all sorts of means to do so. Why do they bother? It is because they have jobs to do and they believe that they should not draw money unless they work for it.
Labour Members ought to think more about the general interests of the country and their constituents and less about the narrow interests of trade unions. We should emphasise how sectional those interests are and how inappropriate it is for hon. Members to speak on behalf of the unions alone, while ignoring the interests of their constituents.
The issue in the dispute is simple. Railway workers are comparatively low paid. The question is whether their pay


should be increased as a result of productivity increases or by Government subsidy—by taxpayers paying more so that the Government can finance an increased offer by British Rail.
I often wonder why it is assumed that anyone should automatically get a pay increase every year. Labour Members say that 5 per cent. is not enough for railway workers and that, even though the leader of the industry says that it cannot afford to pay more, the Government and taxpayers should chip in and subsidise a bigger wage increase.
If we pursue that abominable attitude we shall never make progress. For example, Labour Members are always demanding better social services and increased investment in British Rail. There would be more chance of achieving those aims if the Opposition did not insist on taxpayers' money being used to give railwaymen even more than the 5 per cent. that they have been offered.
There is no magic in wage increase figures. No doubt the British Railways board has worked out that it can afford to pay 5 per cent. if it gets certain productivity increases.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman talks of percentages. Will he tell the House what the lowest paid railwayman takes home each week and compare that with an hon. Member's pay?

Mr. Stanbrook: That is the sort of petty argument in which I do not propose to indulge. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the issue can be settled on the basis of such arguments, it shows how wrong he is.
We have to make a judgment about what is in the public interest. Railway workers are low paid and we are obliged to find ways in which they could be paid more. They could be paid more and the railways could serve the national interest better if they became more efficient. The board's experts have examined the service, and reports have been produced year after year. The recommendations could be implemented. We could have greater efficiency and greater revenue.
Representing a constituency such as mine, I certainly do not want to see more freight on the roads. I want to see more heavy freight on the railways, where it should be. But how are we encouraging people to use the railways for that purpose? We are not encouraging them if we simply subsidise the wages of railway employees and do nothing about productivity.
I agree that the Government should not stand by and allow the railway industry to decline. There should be intervention, but it should be intervention of the very sort that the Government are prepared to make, with investment of a type that will produce greater productivity and efficiency and greater revenue. That will enable more money to be paid to the workers in the industry. It will also serve the needs of the nation as a whole. I repeat, we shall not achieve that purpose by using taxpayers' money over and over again to pay for increased wages without any corresponding improvements in productivity.
The Guardian is not a newspaper that I read every day, but I was impressed by its first leader on 23 June in which it said:
The brutal truth of the matter is that some two-thirds of the near £1 billion which British Rail will receive this year will go to feather-bedding restrictive practices.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: That is not true.

Mr. Stanbrook: I think that there is a great deal of truth in it, and I am prepared to respect the views of The Guardian to that extent. If I had quoted from The Daily Telegraph, Opposition Members would have criticised me for quoting from a Conservative paper. The Guardian does not automatically support the Conservative Party, as hon. Members well know. It could be that the leading article to which I referred represents a reasoned, independent judgment.
Just imagine what could be done with £1 billion in promoting the productivity of British Rail. Instead, we are asked to pay out more money to increase wages and to get nothing in return by way of productivity. That solution cannot be acceptable, and I am glad that the Government are not prepared to follow that path.
The leader in The Guardian went on to say:
Mrs. Thatcher and Sir Peter Parker should stand resolutely firm.
I agree.

Mr. Frank Dobson: After the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I unreservedly proclaim my membership of the National Union of Railwaymen. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, membership of the NUR can be something of a family matter. My father and my grandfather were both members of that union.
The hon. Member for Orpington may be interested to know that I represent King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston stations, as well as several goods yards and London Transport stations, so that whatever is in the interests of the railway industry is in the interests of a large number of my constituents. There are not only those who are directly employed by the railways; there are many others whose employment results from the existence of those major main line stations.
There are more lawyers in my constituency than in any other, but I rely on the lawyers on the Conservative Benches—who are not here in their droves today—to represent the people from Gray's Inn, Lincoln's Inn and the legal offices in my constituency.
It is necessary to consider the British Rail and London Transport disputes in a slightly wider context than the events of this week. To that extent I share the Prime Minister's concern to extend the period of inquiry into the Falklands dispute over a slightly longer period than the week before the Argentine invasion.
If we consider London Transport, we see that for 20 years there was an unremitting decline in the number of passengers, a constant increase in fares, poor wages and ever-diminishing services. With the election of Labour to control of the GLC, those policies were reversed. Fares were reduced, services were improved and, beyond the wildest expectations of those who put through those policies and of the management of London Transport, there was a massive increase in the number of people travelling on both the Tube and the buses.
That was the first improvement in the number of people travelling and in standards of service and the first reduction in charges that had ever occurred on London Transport, and it appeared to be working very well. Then, aided and abetted by the Government, the law became involved, and no doubt again a number of my constituents,


including the five Law Lords, decided that this highly successful policy was illegal, although no one had even suggested before that it was illegal.
As a direct result, we had a doubling of London Transport fares and an immediate effort to cut its services. The current dispute on London Transport springs immediately from the efforts of London Transport to cut its services in the way that the Law Lords made inevitable.
It is partly the fault of the Law Lords that there is a dispute on London Transport. But it is not entirely their fault, because London Transport, the GLC and Labour Members of Parliament—and, since several London Tory Members abstained in the vote, even some London Tories—believe that the law should be changed so that this inevitable increase in fares, decline in use and diminishing services may be halted.
The Secretary of State for Transport is not here at the moment, but he must take full responsibility for the fact that the law has not been changed so that a decent standard of service at a reasonable price can be provided by London Transport. The present dispute springs directly from that, and there ought to be no further comment about it. It is up to the Government, together with the management of London Transport, to reverse the policies that have led to the dispute. Until they do that there is no possibility of what might be described as full-scale peace on London Transport, because the staff are sick to death of providing diminishing services and being badly paid so that they can subsidise services out of their low wages.
I turn to the British Rail dispute. Contrary to what some Government supporters say, not even British Rail has suggested that there has been any failure on the part of the railway unions to carry out the full agreed negotiating procedures. Despite sending provocative letters to all the staff, even the chairman of British Rail did not suggest that there had been any shortcomings in the way that the railway unions had conducted their negotiations. All that he objects to is the outcome of those negotiations.
Government Back Benchers, in a sense rightly, have said that there is some reluctance on the part of NUR members to come out on strike on Monday. Of course, Tory newspapers, including The Guardian, could be expected to hunt round the country for people who said that they did not want to come out on strike. That has always been the job of newspapers. I am surprised that they did not manage to drag in any of the widows and orphans who usually feature in their articles. The only strike that the Tory newspapers have not festooned with the legend "The lads do not wish to come out because their wives are revolting and children will die" is that organised by Solidarity in Poland. No doubt the party-controlled newspapers in Poland carried out a similar exercise.
However, there is a marked reluctance on the part of NUR members to strike. There always has been. They have not been out on strike for more than one day since 1926. They will be reluctant to strike, especially those who are worst paid, because they cannot do without even the miserable wages that British Rail pays them. They also know that the future of the railways hangs in the balance, and no one knows more about the vulnerability of jobs than someone whose job may disappear. No one considers the matter longer, more carefully and more bitterly than

someone who is threatened with losing his job whether he strikes or not. We do not need crocodile tears from Conservative Members.
The basic problem of a member of the NUR is that he is faced with losing his job. The history of the industry during the past 20 years will prove that if he does not strike he will lose his job and that if he strikes he may lose his job. It is an invidious choice and anyone searching for lack of enthusiasm for a strike will find it. Only a madman or madwoman would be enthusiastic about a strike in such circumstances. However, having talked to many railway employees, I believe that they are prepared to strike, because they believe that what is happening has gone on for long enough. They have been promised jam tomorrow for too many tomorrows. Before Sir Peter Parker became chairman, and especially since he became chairman, every time the union was asked for a concession on shedding staff or on productivity, it granted it.
The much-maligned members of the executive must work hard to sell those agreements in depots where jobs will be lost. Sir Peter Parker did not write a letter to the staff in those depots saying "Ignore the advice of your union." He knew that, without the advice of the union, he could not get the productivity agreements through. It is hypocritical for him to do what he has done, and it is a breach of the agreement that he reached with the railway unions. The only breach was by Sir Peter Parker, when he abrogated, without consultation, the agreement with the unions. It will cause trouble that will echo in the industry for years, whatever the outcome of the dispute.

Mr. Eggar: If there is one.

Mr. Dobson: I hope that there will not be. Whoever decides such matters—the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or the chairman of the Conservative Party, who was a member of the war cabinet—must take responsibility for resolving the dispute instead of pretending not to be responsible for provoking it. It is a deception when they pretend not to be responsible, because it is clear from private soundings within the upper hierarchy of British Rail that many management members would wish to make concessions to resolve the dispute but that they are being prevented from doing so by Ministers, though not in public. That is another disgraceful element in the dispute.
We must get the Government—they are basically responsible—to acknowledge that the railway unions, especially the NUR, have, almost without fail, met the requirements of losing jobs and improving productivity, while obtaining nothing from the Government in return. The Secretary of State claims that the high-speed train is a pay-off for current improvements in productivity, but that was the pay-off for earlier productivity improvements. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman wants to count it twice. He is also saying "I put the money into the Bedford—St. Pancras line". That is not true. The Labour Government entered into that commitment.
The right hon. Gentleman has claimed also that he has agreed to the East Anglia line electrification. He has, but that is not new money, because it had been agreed earlier to make the investment.
The right hon. Gentleman claims that he has approved the rolling programme of electrification. He has approved it, but he will not hand over any money. It is farcical to say that he has delivered his side of the bargain.
The cuts in the railway industry have been startling even to someone such as myself who could claim to be familiar with them. In 1950 there were 44,000 drivers, and there are now 18,000. In the same year there were 24,000 guards, and there are now only 12,000. Traffic staff in 1950 amounted to 96,000, and there are now 31,000. The number of signalmen has declined from 26,000 to 7,000, workshop staff from 51,000 to 20,000, and salaried staff from 112,000 to 46,000. Total staff numbers have declined since 1950 from 497,000 to 166,000. The House preaches productivity to the nation. If there had been similar job shedding in the House and improvements in productivity, we would have about 200 Members, or even fewer, instead of 635.
Those figures show the scale of job losses on the railways, and they have been achieved with the full co-operation of the railway unions. There has been no proper pay-off in return. When Beeching wielded his axe and closed down legions of rural railways, the promise was made that there would be a well-paid industry, which would be well-run and modernised. Promises were made that there would be new rolling stock, new track and new signalling. That did not happen. Jobs on the railways are badly paid and only a small proportion of the rolling stock is new. The track is in a deplorable condition.
The Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate represents a Birmingham constituency. If he does not travel to Birmingham in his official car, he will know better than almost anyone else the deplorable decline in the state of the track, signalling and rolling stock between England's two major cities. That is but one example of the massive, inevitable and time-related decline in the standard of British Rail's equipment. Until the Government meet all the debts of honour which they and various chairmen of British Rail have entered into over the years, the railwaymen will no longer tolerate job losses.
Verbal attacks have been made on members of the NUR executive. A third of its members are elected every year. When they cease to be members they return to their ordinary jobs on the railways. Therefore, it is no good saying that the jobs of the leaders of the NUR are not at risk. They are all lay members of the executive. They are all working railwaymen. When they go back to their jobs with British Rail, the jobs may not be there. They are well aware of the risks involved. They have now reached the stage at which they are saying that if they and the people whom they represent are to be chopped and decimated by the Government, they should die with their boots on in a strike rather than just give way and give way again and end up with the self-same loss of jobs and poor pay.
That is a characteristic of British people which the Prime Minister considers admirable in other spheres. So do we all. But, if we welcome it when we ask British troops to fight on our behalf, we must also remember that that characteristic of British people is in them whether they are in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or anywhere else. We shall get that stubborn response from people who work in the railways because they have seen that compromise after compromise by them has not been rewarded. One cannot have one set of national characteristics in one sphere without having to put up with it in another.
The plain fact is that the Government are responsible for the dispute in British Rail as well as the London Transport dispute. The responsibility lies squarely with them. If the hon. Member for Orpington had taken part in any previous debates on transport he might have known

some of the reasons that were leading to the dispute that will cause difficulties for his constituents. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not speak out much earlier.
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not speak out in the Chamber when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that there was no possibility of improving productivity or standards on the Southern Region of British Rail unless there was a massive increase in investment. The hon. Gentleman should have spoken out in favour of that investment. Had he done so he would have been representing the interests of his constituents. Instead, he has come along today like a jackal or a vulture to hover over the present crisis. If he wants to represent the interests of his constituents, he should do it all the time. He should have done so well in advance of the dispute.

Mr. Albert Booth: This is an unhappy debate for my hon. Friends and me because over it is an air of inevitability in that Conservative Members are engaging in an orgy of union-bashing, and Opposition Members, who for a long time protested that the Government were failing to take steps to avoid a crisis, are defending their fellow trade unionists.

Mr. Eggar: The right hon. Gentleman owes an explanation to the House and the country on two points. First, does he support the action taken by the NUR in calling the strike that is due to commence on Monday? Secondly, does he support the decision of the NUR to break procedural agreements on the underground?

Mr. Booth: If the hon. Gentleman had attended transport debates in the House more frequently, he would have known the position that I take on those basic issues.

Mr. Eggar: rose—

Mr. Booth: I cannot give way to further interventions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy. Normally I am most willing to give way. On this occasion we are nearly at the end of a debate, after which the Minister must have proper time to reply. I want to make a number of brief points.

Mr. Eggar: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, this is an Adjournment debate which I initiated. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly reasonable question on which I should have thought that he, as the leading Opposition spokesman on transport matters, was bound to comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): That is a matter of argument, not a point of order for me.

Mr. Booth: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman initiated the debate. I hope that my comments, brief though they will be, will make clear my general support for the position of trade unions, so that the hon. Gentleman need be in no doubt about that.
I object to Conservative Members talking about the strike putting jobs at risk in the industry. Jobs have been at risk in the industry for years, and we have pointed out the extent to which Government decisions made jobs losses the more serious and inevitable.
Jobs are at risk on two bases. First, they are at risk from the collapse of a large part of the network. If the present level of investment is not increased, British Rail's own estimate, which it put to the Government last year, is that


about 3,000 miles of the network will become inoperable and further sections will be operable only under considerable speed restrictions. The Government will not acknowledge that the regime that they are imposing on British Rail has led to a collapse in investment expenditure.
Will the Minister confirm in his reply the following figures, which I have double checked with British Rail? Based on mid-1981 price levels, the total investment expenditure of British Rail has fallen year by year from £379 million in 1979 to an estimated £265 million this year. Moreover, the part of the total investment expenditure devoted to railways—as a board decision part of the expenditure was shifted from other areas to railways in 1980—has fallen from £309 million in 1980 to £242 million, which is about half the amount required to sustain, let alone modernise, the network.
It is also not true that the Government are now giving greater financial support to British Rail than has ever been given to it before. I have checked the contention made in Monday's debate. Although it is true that the public service obligation payment is higher than ever before, the total grant aid in the past included freight support, which has now been withdrawn. Again taken on a 19131 price basis, the total support of £818 million this year means that less is now being paid by the British public in support of British Rail than in 1975.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) accused the Opposition of pursuing a narrow sectional interest. We have been raising the impending crisis in British railways as a matter of public interest in the first instance. We have been aided and abetted in that by the railway unions and the British Railways Board which have been able to advise us about the nature of the dispute.

Mr. Stanbrook: As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned me, may I ask whether he supports the strike?

Mr. Booth: I have made it clear that I support the railway unions in the position that they have taken. I share the regret of the railway unions and of all Members of the House that the policy that the unions have pursued could not be resolved with British Rail and has led to a dispute.

Mr. Eggar: Now we know who to blame.

Mr. Booth: I make no apology in this House for saying that I think the primary responsibility for the dispute does not rest with the railway unions. It rests with the Government in the main and, to some degree, with the board. There is no doubt where I stand.
I suggest to Conservative Members and I hope, with respect, that I may also suggest to the Minister that the public interest would be far better served at this juncture if the Government were to recognise that it is not possible to sustain our railways, let alone modernise them, on the basis of the present financial regime and that a tripartite agreement is required between the Government, the unions and the board about the basis on which they will be financed. It is on the basis of such agreement that not only this dispute but further disputes can be averted, enabling our railway system to be a matter of pride and great support to our country rather than a constant source of dispute and threat to our economy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I think it would be right if I sought, like the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) to speak briefly. I appreciate fully the great concern that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) to give notice in respect of this Adjournment debate and that caused my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who made a moving speech, and for Anglesey (Mr. Best) who dwelt particularly on the difficulties that will be experienced in rural parts of the country to take part. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), all expressed their views on behalf of their constituents who face such serious difficulties due to the strike action that has begun in London and that has been called, in respect of British Rail, to begin at midnight on Sunday.
I have listened carefully to the speeches but it is my view that no fresh points of substance about the dispute have been raised which were not referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement and in his replies to questions this morning. His replies were very comprehensive indeed. I think it right, therefore, to refer to three matters that have attracted particular attention during the debate. They are three subjects on which there is a difference of opinion. The hon. Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to Government expenditure. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness also raised a number of points in that connection.
The facts are simple. Government grant to the railways was increased in 1981 by £110 million and still stands at over £2 million each day. That is relevant to the point raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) who referred to the condition of the track and maintenance work and also to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are concerned about the way in which the substantial funds provided by the Government by way of the PSO tend to drain away into the railway system, with the result that maintenance work has been neglected over a number of years. That is why we have agreed—I know that we have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman—to earmark a part of the PSO for this year in a way that will oblige British Rail to do its work on maintenance of the track as a first essential. That should help to ensure that proper maintenance work is carried out to keep the railway system in good condition.
British Rail's investment ceiling of £428 million this year has not been changed in real terms from the ceilings set by the Labour Government. British Rail must generate funds to allow investment up to that ceiling, and that means reducing its operating costs. That brings us, of course, to the point of difference between the NUR and ASLEF and the British Rail management, the question of increasing productivity.
Anyone who has thought about the £150 million investment in the new commuter service between Bedford and St. Pancras, and who has followed the detailed arguments about rostering, will appreciate the critical importance of productivity to the future of the railways. Lord McCarthy emphasised the tremendous importance of productivity. The board's external financing limit is almost £900 million. The levels set since this Government


came to office have been substantially higher in real terms than in any of the previous four years. We come back to the essential requirement that productivity is necessary to make use of the investment, to reduce the cost of operation, and to produce a healthier future for the railways. Lord McCarthy said, on the subject of rostering, that unless there was an improvement in productivity, there would be a gloomy future for the railways and railwaymen.
Hon. Gentlemen have spoken about railwaymen. I want to emphasise that these moves towards increased productivity give the British Railways Board an opportunity to create a modern and efficient railway service out of which railwaymen would benefit.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that, if his officials looked at the briefs that they had provided for Transport Ministers over the past 20 years, they would see that they had simply cut out a paragraph from the previous speech and attached it to the new one on every occasion, that what he says has never been true, and that it has never been fulfilled?

Mr. Eyre: I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, who I know has a great interest in railways, will accept the truth of the argument about productivity, which has been repeated over the years, because of its importance to the future of a successful railway.

Mr. English: I thank the Minister for what he said about maintenance, but if the British Railways Board has to be told to spend money on maintenance, there must be inefficiency at management level. Any other organisation would know about it. Will the Minister go a stage further? He mentioned the Bedford line. No one believes that British Rail wants greater productivity when the Midland line is to stop at Bedford. That was the point of my speech. If the board wants greater productivity, it must give a better service through the most densely populated part of the United Kingdom—apart, of course, from that served by the West Coast line. It seems obvious. However, the board is actually offering to spend taxpayers' money on the least densely populated line. That cannot be right.

Mr. Eyre: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings about Nottingham, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not discuss a matter that concerns British Rail management, and if I confine myself to the subject of productivity, in respect of which the investment in the line from St. Pancras to Bedford is of great practical importance.
The second point that I want to mention is the reference to London Transport made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts). As was made patently clear in the statement, the NUR's strike decision is a cynical and opportunistic move.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Eyre: There is a "no redundancy" threat. The service cuts are minimal and are necessary for the long term. London Transport management has bent over backwards to negotiate reasonably. However, union leaders are now switching the strike issue to pay. The union executive is doing that without formal notice and has

brushed aside the normal negotiating procedures in its haste to find any excuse for joining in the damage and disruption.
I emphasise that point, which was made in the statement, because the union's attitude has been so militant. Many Conservative Members have expressed the view that the union is not supported by many of its members throughout Britain.
Thirdly, the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and Holborn and St. Pancras, South and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—in his powerful speech—referred to the chairman's letter. It is for the chairman of the British Railways, Board to decide how best to communicate with its work force. He decided that a letter was the right course in the circumstances.
The letter points out clearly and starkly the harsh realities that face railwaymen if they embark on this disastrous action. The chairman of the British Railways Board wrote that letter in what he genuinely sees as the best interests of railwaymen and of all the staff of British Rail.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister accept that the objection is not to the sending of a letter as such, but to the contribution that that letter is liable to make at a sensitive time prior to the dispute? Does he seriously believe that the letter will make a positive contribution at such a sensitive time to the solution of the dispute? With his knowledge of the industry, does he not agree that it is likely to put up the backs of ordinary rank and file members, particularly those who will be making decisions?

Mr. Eyre: I must ask the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members not to use the letter to develop further strong feeling among union members against British Rail. I believe that the chairman was genuinely expressing his great concern to all those who work for British Rail about the disastrous effect upon the future of British Rail that would follow from a strike. He was expressing his concern and it was right and proper that he should do that. That decision was essentially for the chairman.
It is apparent that the long-suffering commuter population in London has once again suffered unnecessary inconvenience and hardship this year. No doubt there is more in store for him next week at the hands of the same unions but under a different pretext. It is sad that the disruption will be spread throughout the country as the British Rail strike develops on Sunday evening unless there is a change of heart on the part of the union leadership.
The Metropolitan Police have made, and will continue to make, valiant efforts to keep the capital's traffic flowing as smoothly as possible and to organise the emergency car parks that have been opened. I appeal to everyone who is faced with these difficulties to take common-sense steps to minimise the worst effects. By avoiding unnecessary journeys into London wherever possible, car-sharing, giving lifts and staggering working hours, much can be done.
Earlier this year, commuters showed great fortitude and ingenuity in keeping the vital work of the capital going in the face of similar disruption. I have every confidence, knowing the true reasons behind this senseless and disruptive action, that they will show the same fortitude


again. I feel sure that throughout the country those adversely affected by a British Rail strike will adopt a similar attitude.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred to intervention. However, the Government have no locus in the negotiations between the board and its work force on questions of pay and productivity, and they have no intention of intervening.

Mr. Eggar: Did my hon. Friend notice that unlike the Government, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) clearly committed the Opposition directly to supporting the unions?

Mr. Eyre: We all noted carefully the words that the right hon. Gentleman used. The issues are clear. On pay,

the board cannot offer what it cannot afford. It can afford nothing without delivery of the productivity improvements for which it has paid. The productivity measures have been thoroughly discussed and analysed both by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and by Lord McCarthy, who support their introduction.
Anyone who cares about the future of the railways can only repeat the hope expressed this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the questions following his statement. We can only hope that the union will draw back from the brink and thus avoid all the unnecessary loss and suffering that could follow from a strike.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Three o'clock.